Parachute, 1 mars 1978, Printemps

[" ARACHUT $2.50 PRINTEMPS 1978 & ^ PARACHUTE, revue d\u2019art contemporain Inc./ les éditions PARACHUTE directrices de la publication FRANCE MORIN, CHANTAL PONTBRIAND collaborateurs JEAN-PIERRE BASTIEN, SERGE BÉRARD, GEORGES BOGARDI, CHRISTIANE CHARET-TE, CLAUDE CHAMBERLAND, LESLEY COTTON, PEGGY GALE, RAYMOND GERVAIS, GILLES GHEERBRANT, GEORGE CSABA KOLLER, JOHN W.LOCKE, DIANA NEMIROFF, JONAS MEKAS, NICOLE MORIN-McCALLUM, RENE PAYANT, VLADA PETRIC, YVONNE RAINER, GEORGES ROQUE, YANA STERBACK, PIERRE THÉBERGE.secrétariat COLETTE TOUGAS collaborateur responsable pour l\u2019Europe THIERRY DE DUVE Les manuscrits en provenance de l\u2019Europe doivent être envoyés à Thierry de Duve, 25, rue Jean Stas, Bruxelles, Belgique, système graphique: PIERRE BOOGAERTS PARACHUTE n\u2019est pas responsable des documents qui lui sont adressés ou non réclamés, tous droits de reproduction et de traduction réservés.Les articles publiés n\u2019engagent que la responsabilité de leurs auteurs.PARACHUTE est publié avec l\u2019aide du Conseil des Arts du Canada et reçoit cette année l\u2019aide de la Fondation Bronfman.PARACHUTE, C.P.730 \u2014 succursale N, Montréal, Québec, Canada H2X 3N4 (514) 522-9167.publication trimestrielle \u2014 le numéro $2.50, abonnement $9.00 étranger (Europe et Etats-Unis) $15.00 par avion.Dépôt légal à la Bibliothèque Nationale du Québec et à la Bibliothèque Nationale du Canada.3ième trimestre 1977.Imprimerie Boulanger Inc., Montréal Rive-Sud Typo Service Inc., St-Lambert ISSN: 0318-7020 Courrier 2e classe no 4213 Couverture: TIRÉ DE WORLD IN FOCUS, 1976, de VINCENT GRENIER. 4 9 12 15 16 18 21 25 27 29 33 35 37 40 45 50 PRINTEMPS 1978 FRANÇOIS MORELLET par Gilles Gheerbrant SUZY LAKE \u2014 IMPOSITIONS by Diana Nemiroff Temporal Realities: ERIC CAMERON and NOEL HARDING CINÉMA INDEPENDENT FILM, EXPERIMENTAL FILM, AVANT-GARDE FILM: A CLARIFICATION by John W.Locke CLAUDE CHAMBERLAND, entrevue réalisée par France Morin et Chantal Pontbriand JONAS MEK AS an interview by Yana Sterbak VISIONARY EXPERIMENTS by George Csaba Koller LE CINÉMA EXPÉRIMENTAL \u2014 1978: New York/Montréal par John W.Locke EXPERIMENTAL FILM 1978: New York/Montreal by John W.Locke Two Films, Two Filmmakers: VINCENT GRENIER AND J.J.MURPHY by John W.Locke VINCENT GRENIER par Serge Bérard LE CINÉMA QUÉBÉCOIS AU CARREFOUR by Vlada Petrie RAMEAU\u2019S NEPHEW BY DIDEROT (THANX TO DENNIS YOUNG) BY WILMA SCHOEN de Michael Snow: l\u2019introduction par Pierre Théberge YVONNE RAINER an interview by Chantal Pontbriand INFORMATIONS Angles droits concentriques, huile sur bois, 1956, 80 x 80 cm, collection Stadtisches Museum Mdnchengladbach.Depuis vingt-six ans, c\u2019est-à-dire depuis qu'il a vingt six ans, François Morellet pratique un travail artistique systématique, \u2014 articulant essentiellement des lignes, des points et des tirets en noir et blanc \u2014 mais dans lequel de nouvelles idées ou de nouveaux développements des idées de base viennent constamment enrichir une oeuvre qui constitue la plus cinglante réponse à ceux qui pourraient s\u2019inquiéter de la possibilité de travailler de façon prolongée avec des systèmes simples et intelligents.Lorsque l\u2019historien d'art nord-américain, généralement peu au fait de ce qui se passe de l\u2019autre côté de F Atlantique, ou qui a classé définitivement Morellet dans la rubrique \u201copart\u201d, découvre l'oeuvre de cet artiste dans le catalogue de l\u2019importante rétrospective à la Nationalgalerie de Berlin et au Musée d'Art Moderne de Paris en 1977-78, il ne peut manquer d\u2019éprouver un curieux sentiment de déjà-vu puis d\u2019être pris de malaise et de sentir une partie de ses certitudes s\u2019écrouler quand il regarde la date de création des peintures de Morellet.Il a en effet devant les yeux un tableau à bandes horizontales étagées de 1952 qui lui fait inévitablement penser à un Noland de 1967, un tableau à bandes verticales rythmiques de 1952 également qui lui fait penser à des oeuvres postérieures de plusieurs artistes, un certain nombre de tableaux réalisés de 1952 à 1957etqui ressemblent étrangement à des Stella de 1959 à 1968, des superpositions de trames de 1952 à maintenant qui évoquent des Sol Lewitt postérieurs, et on pourrait continuer ainsi longuement la liste des précédents que l\u2019on trouve dans l\u2019oeuvre de Morellet.Bien entendu, c\u2019est tout à son honneur d\u2019avoir eu autant d\u2019\u201cépigones\u201d conscients, ou le plus souvent inconscients, mais il convient de bien noter la date d\u2019exécution de ses oeuvres pour se faire une idée juste de ce que Morellet a accompli.En fait, des artistes que j\u2019ai nommés plus haut, ou auxquels j\u2019ai fait allusion, c\u2019est sans doute Sol Lewitt qui ressemble le plus à Morellet ou dont les préoccupations sont les plus proches de celles de ce dernier, même s\u2019ils diffèrent par certains côtés ainsi que nous aurons l\u2019occasion de le voir par la suite.Si l\u2019on prend le cas de Stella, on s\u2019aperçoit que les deux artistes sont parfois proches au niveau des \u201cimages\u201d que l\u2019on trouve dans leurs travaux respectifs, mais sont en fait radicalement opposés au niveau des intentions.Comme l\u2019a très bien montré Dieter Honisch, Morellet s\u2019intéresse avant tout à \u201cordonner le champ du tableau de façon régulière et surtout logique\u201d alors que Stella se préoccupe surtout de la délimitation du champ.,2) FRANCOIS MORELLET par Gilles Gheerbrant \u201cOn va certainement me critiquer.on dira qu\u2019il n\u2019y a plus de peinture, plus de touche.Mais mon but est tout autre: dans le noir est morte la couleur et maintenant, elle ne joue aucun rôle.Que le barbouillage meure à son tour.\u201d Alexandre Rodtchenko, journal, 21 août 1919 111 Morellet a été très impressionné par sa rencontre au début des années 50 avec l\u2019art arabe qu\u2019il a découvert en Espagne, à Grenade surtout, et qui lui a fourni l\u2019exemple d\u2019un \u201call over\u201d d\u2019une intelligence jamais égalée.C\u2019est cette rencontre, jointe à celle des idées de Max Bill et de l\u2019art concret suisse |3) qui fait basculer Morellet vers un art systématique qui abandonne toute idée de composition, avec ce que cela comporte de déséquilibre équilibré, au profit d\u2019une organisation rationnelle et uniforme du champ du tableau.Il fallait un certain courage et un certain esprit de contradiction pour se lancer dans cette voie anti-romantique, froide et systématique en France en 1952, et Morellet était bien le seul Français à avoir cet esprit à l\u2019époque.Il avait toutefois à ce moment-là quatre bons amis qui travaillaient dans un esprit assez proche, Ellsworth Kelly (dont Morellet nous a appris qu\u2019il avait une vénération particulière pour Max Bill auquel il rendit plusieurs fois visite, un fait qui est généralement ignoré ou passé sous silence quand on discute de Kelly), Alain Naudet qui, entre 1952 et 1955 a fait une dizaine de tableaux très \u201cminimal\u201d, Almir Mavignier, peintre brésilien qui pratiquait un pointillisme systématique et Jack Youngerman, autre peintre américain, qui devait devenir plus lyrique par la suite, mais qui était à ce moment-là, sinon systématique, du moinsassez \u201cminimal\u201d.Comme il l\u2019écrit dans son \u201cAvertissement\u201d de 1972, Morellet a, depuis 1952, \u201cfabriqué des objets inutiles (donc artistiques) caractérisés par l\u2019absence de tout intérêt de composition ou d\u2019exécution et la présence de systèmes simples et évidents faisant souvent appel au hasard réel ou à la participation des spectateurs\u201d.4 Essayons d\u2019examiner en détail ces caractéristiques sur lesquelles Morellet attire lui-même notre attention.Tout d'abord le champ du tableau est le plus souvent intégralement rempli de signes répétés d\u2019une manière uniforme, en fonction d\u2019un principe structuraliste d\u2019organisation et non d'une quelconque idée de composition.Il n'y a pas de hiérarchie, pas d\u2019endroits privilégiés, mais une fondamentale unité et homogénéité de la surface.Les tableaux sont comme découpés dans des structures plus vastes, ce qui veut dire que l\u2019on peut en imaginer les prolongements à l\u2019infini.Ce qui préoôcupe Morellet c\u2019est l\u2019organisation interne et non la délimitation du champ, et celà n\u2019est pas vrai seulement quand on parle des tableaux ou des dessins, mais nous est confirmé à un autre niveau par la genèse de la fameuse sphère-trame de 1962 par exemple.En effet Morellet avait d\u2019abord pensé suspendre dans l\u2019espace un cube constitué d'une multitude de petits cubes intérieurs dont les arêtes seraient matérialisées par un assemblage de tiges métalliques.Mais les essais lui ont montré que quand le cube tournait, on percevait beaucoup moins les différentes superpositions à l\u2019intérieur du cube que ce qui se produisait en périphérie, sur le pourtour constitué par la projection des arêtes du cube extérieur dans le plan de vision.Et c\u2019est pourquoi, finalement, il a opté pour une forme sphérique, définie mais ouverte, permettant de voir ce qui se passe à l\u2019intérieur: dans les tiges de métal qui structurent le vide en une sphère, il n\u2019y a plus de bord.De la même façon, dans la \u201crépartition de piquets équidistants, avec les sommets au même niveau\u201d de 1971, les piquets sont visibles dans les zones de plus grande dépression des jardins vallonnés du CNAC, et on imagine leur répartition uniforme se prolongeant sous terre dans les zones les plus hautes.Si l'on revient aux tableaux de Morellet, et qu\u2019on les considère du point de vue de leur aspect général, on constate qu\u2019ils sont le plus souvent réalisés en noir et blanc, et toujours avec une volonté évidente de neutralité dans l\u2019exécution qui est la plus mécanique possible.|4) Les lignes sont tracées à la règle et à la roulette, les surfaces ne comportent aucun accident particulier mais se présentent comme égales et lisses, dénuées le plus possible de toute trace manuelle qui viendrait distraire l\u2019attention du propos fondamental du travail en introduisant une note poétique ou simplement \u201cartistique\u201d.Il est parfois difficile de maintenir cette neutralité et Morellet parle lui-même du danger qu\u2019il a rencontré pendant les années 60 \u201cde créer de beaux objets putains et luxueux.\u201d C\u2019est pourquoi il a \u201crapidement préféré aux métaux (un peu précieux) la lumière directe et particulièrement le néon dont l\u2019effet est dur, net, sans ombre ni reflet.\u201d15\u2019 Qu\u2019il s\u2019agisse de néon, de constructions métalliques, de toiles sur chassis ou de grands calques punaisés directement sur un mur, il y a toujours un système en action dans le travail de Morellet, et depuis 1956 chaque oeuvre est pourvue d\u2019un titre qui énonce de façon concise et claire le système qui en est le moteur.'6\u2019 Ainsi par exemple un tableau de 1 958 s\u2019intitule \u201c4 doubles trames 20°, 22°5, 45°, 67°5\u201d ou un tableau de 1974 \"Tirets dont la longueur et l\u2019espacement augmentent à chaque rangée de 5mm\u201d, ou encore cette série de 3 toiles formant une pièce de 1973 \u201c3 toiles de 4m.de périmètre avec une diagonale horizontale\u201d.Ce titre constitue l\u2019énoncé de ce que Morellet appelle volontiers la règle du jeu ou l\u2019idée préconçue, le système qui pourrait être communiqué par téléphone à un assistant qui produirait alors une oeuvre soit exactement semblable, à celle que Morellet pourrait faire de son côté, soit, selon la part d'ouverture que comprend le système, un pur équivalent, renvoyant de la même façon à la règle commune.Cela va évidemment beaucoup plus loin que les 3 \u201cTelefonbid\u201d que Moholy-Nagy a réalisés en 1923 en décrivant de façon détaillée au contremaître d\u2019une fabrique d\u2019enseignes en émail une composition sur papier millimétré qu\u2019il avait devant les yeux, composition très dépouillée et géométrique, mais composition avant tout intuitive et non régie par un programme.Les règles du jeu de Morellet sont en fait les modèles génératifs (au sens de Chomsky) d\u2019autant de grammaires qui engendrent les oeuvres.Du reste les systèmes de Morellet sont en général très simples et les oeuvres parfaitement et immédiatement lisibles: on peut comprendre ce qui se passe sans même avoir au besoin de regarder le titre qui n\u2019est que confirmation.Les systèmes de Morellet peuvent se regrouper en cinq grandes familles: juxtaposition, superposition, hasard, interférence et fragmentation.Tout cela est très clairement défini et expliqué dans le catalogue que nous avons mentionné plus haut et auquel nous renvoyons le lecteur intéressé à en savoir plus long.Disons simplement que le principe de juxtaposition et le principe de superposition interviennent dès 1952, le principe d\u2019interférence dès 1953 et le hasard à partir de 1958.Le principe de fragmentation a été utilisé pour la première fois en 1954 mais se manifeste surtout depuis 1973 et a abouti en 1977 à toute une série de pliages qui sont particulièrement remarquables.À la différence de l\u2019art concret qui produit des objets esthétiques qui fonctionnent, mais qui sont clos, qui sont des choses finies et définitives, l\u2019art systématique ou génératif amène des séries plus ou moins illimitées d\u2019oeuvres engendrées par un même système dont elles sont autant d\u2019exemplifications qui sont tout aussi définitives prises une à une mais qui renvoient les unes aux autres, produisent des effets de complémentarité, de retournement, d\u2019équivalence, de référence etc.Si un système intelligent est intelligemment traité et présenté, il ne manque pas de se produire des résultats visuellement et intellectuellement intéressants.Il y a bien entendu une part d'intuition ou d\u2019arbitraire pour en arriver à des règles ou des procédures personnelles, mais, l\u2019intérêt visuel des résultats et l\u2019attrait intellectuel de la simplicité et de la rigueur du processus, joint au fait que cet intérêt et cet attrait sont parfaitement matérialisés dans une oeuvre qui lie indissociablement le processus au résultat, tout cela fait que le travail se trouve parfaitement justifié en dernière analyse.Quelques exemples d'oeuvres récentes de Morellet qui me touchent beaucoup visuellement et intellectuellement: un tableau carré est rempli de lignes parallèles équidistantes inclinées à 5°, et ce tableau est basculé à l\u2019accrochage de telle sorte que les lignes qu\u2019il contient deviennent horizontales.Autre exemple: sur le principe des \u201ctirets verticaux avec deux interférences\u201d, Morellet a réalisé un multiple qui s\u2019édite de lui-même: au lieu de la feuille de papier ou de la toile, une planche de bois, et au lieu des deux réseaux de lignes, des entailles à la scie de telle sorte qu\u2019à chaque fois que les traits de scie se rejoignent, un exemplaire du multiple est réalisé et tombe.Autre exemple encore: dans une série de quatre dessins exposés récemment à Montréal (voir illustration du premier et du quatrième dessin) la première ligne horizontale de points du premier dessin se retrouve comme première ligne verticale du dernier dessin, du fait du processus suivi.\u201cUne expérience véritable doit être menée à partir d\u2019éléments contrôlables en progressant systématiquement suivant un programme.Le développement d\u2019une expérience doit se réaliser de lui-même, presque en dehors du programmateur.\u201d Cet extrait de \u201cPour une peinture programmée\u201d, texte écrit par Morellet en 1962 rejoint tout à fait les préoccupations théoriques du groupe Art Concret fondé en 1930 à Paris par Théo van Doesburg ou certaines des \u201cSentences on conceptual art\u201d formulées par Sol Lewitt en 1968.En ayant recours à des systèmes qu\u2019il fait jouer et dont il accepte les résultats sans les \u201cretoucher\u201d une fois que le processus a été mis en branle, Morellet cherche à supprimer au maximum les décisions subjectives et arbitraires que prend un artiste guidé par son \u201cinspiration\u201d c\u2019est-à-dire sa sensibilité, ses habitudes culturelles ou ses goûts.Il n\u2019est pas question d\u2019établir une quelconque mystique du 4 doubles trames, 0°, 22°5, 45°, 67°5, huile sur bois, 1958, 80 x 80 cm, collection particulière, France.système mais il me semble important, fondamental qu\u2019à partir du moment où l\u2019on a décidé de travailler d\u2019une manière logique et d\u2019utiliser un système, on ne vienne pas alors s\u2019en écarter sous le moindre prétexte.Les systématiques européens en général, et Morellet en particulier me semblent avoir à ce tégard une attitude beaucoup plus saine et cohérente que bon nombre d\u2019artistes des États-Unis qui ont pu donner l\u2019impression d\u2019être systématiques.Dans le cas de Stella et Poons, l\u2019évolution ultérieure de leur production a rendu les choses très claires et enlevé tout ambiguité, mais si Lewitt est effectivement systématique, on cite très souvent en sa compagnie Rockburne et Bochner, or les plus récentes expositions de ces deux artistes ont montré que le système que l\u2019on évoque constamment à leur propos est en fait chez eux un leurre idéologique servant à masquer des travaux finalement assez rétrogrades dans lesquels la couleur apparaît avec une fonction purement cosmétique ou qui nous ramènent, toute réflexion faite, à Poliakoff ou à certains épigones de Malevitch.Le système peut être construit à partir de la constatation de certains phénomènes du monde environnant qu\u2019il s\u2019agit en les systématisant de rendre plus clairs et perceptibles, d\u2019articuler d\u2019une façon nouvelle et synthétique, ou bien il peut s\u2019agir d\u2019une logique abstraite dont l\u2019artiste ne peut pas savoir a priori quels résultats visuels elle va donner.Les mathématiques (élémentaires) peuvent servir à la formulation des problèmes, mais elles sont un simple outil et jamais une fin en soi.En fait la visualisation de formules mathématiques n\u2019a 10 lignes au hasard, huile sur toile, 1971, 140 x 140 cm, collection particulière, France.5 Trame 5° placée horizontalement, huile sur toile, 1976, 200 x 200 cm, collection particulière, France.rien à voir avec l\u2019art systématique ou génératif dans lequel il s\u2019agit beaucoup plus de logiqueque demathé-matiques.Tous les artistes qui travaillent avec des systèmes sont attirés par le hasard et cherchent à le mettre en oeuvre dans des structures simples.Mais alors que certains s'en remettent à des exécutants qui peuvent toujours laisser intervenir des biais personnels à l\u2019intérieur de certaines contraintes données, Morellet refuse de laisser agir ses biais à lui, ou ceux d\u2019assistants éventuels: il choisit de faire appel à un hasard extérieur, objectif, non biaisé par les inclinations d\u2019une personnalité et utilise à cette fin le générateur de nombres au hasard universellement accessible que constitue un annuaire du téléphone.Ainsi le tableau \u201cRépartition aléatoire de 40,000 carrés suivant les chiffres pairs et impairs d'un annuaire de téléphone\u201d de 1961.Il est vrai que le terme hasard en français est assez vague et ambigu, mais on aura compris que le hasard de Morellet, le hasard systématique est très éloigné de tous les petits hasards d\u2019\u201caccidents de travail\u201d qui existent dans la peinture traditionnelle.Points avec un espacement de 5mm, 10mm, 15mm, 20mm, etc.; hauteurs 5mm, 10mm, 15mm, 20mm, 25mm, 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, 50mm, encre et crayon sur papier, 1977, 68 x 68 cm, collection Jacques Palumbo, Montréal, photo Gabor Szilasi.D\u2019ailleurs l\u2019artiste qui travaille de façon non systématique va provoquer le hasard une fois, puis va le provoquer à nouveau, peut-être avec des résultats opposés, jusqu\u2019à ce qu\u2019il soit en définitive satisfait.Comme le dit Morellet, ce qu\u2019on fait alors c\u2019est \u201cune touche d\u2019une certaine façon, puis on en fait une autre, mais, bien sûr, le mouvement de la main, la peinture qui éclabousse un peu, tout cela n\u2019est pas contrôlé, et ce n'est pas parce qu\u2019une chose n\u2019est pas contrôlée ou mal contrôlée qu\u2019elle a le droit d\u2019être dite au hasard.\u201d Prendre un recul vis-à-vis de l\u2019oeuvre d\u2019art a toujours été l'une des préoccupations majeures de Morellet et le hasard comme l\u2019utilisation de systèmes permet de créer ce recul.L\u2019utilisation du spectateur comme créateur, comme participant favorise également cette prise de distance.Déjà le fait que l\u2019oeuvre est lisible et vérifiable par le spectateur confère à celui-ci un rôle actif de ratification.De façon plus directe, l\u2019idée de l\u2019artiste comme meneur de jeu et toute la question de la participation du spectateur a été importante dans le groupe de recherche d'art visuel dont Morellet fut l\u2019un des fondateurs.Laissons-le évoquer ici ce que fut le groupe et la place qui y était faite au spectateur.(7> \u201cQuand le groupe d\u2019amis que nous formions avec Ellsworth Kelly, Alain Naudet, Jack Youngerman et Almir Mavignier s\u2019est dispersé vers 1955, Kelly retournant aux États-Unis, Naudet arrêtant de peindre, Youngerman devenant plus lyrique et Mavignier partant en Allemagne, alors j\u2019ai été très seul.À la fin de 1956, j\u2019ai rencontré François et Vera Molnar, peintres tous les deux, originaires de Hongrie et qui travaillaient d\u2019une façon assez systématique.Au début on se rencontrait peu, puis on se rencontrait plus, et nous voulions former un groupe, mais il n\u2019y avait personne d\u2019autre à Paris que nous aurions pu inviter à se joindre à nous.En 1959-60 de nombreux artistes sont arrivés d'Argentine, parmi lesquels Le Parc, Rossi, Sobrino, Demarco et Miranda et , avec eux, plus Joel Stein, Servane, Yvaral et les Molnar, nous avons fondé le Groupe de recherche d\u2019art visuel en 1960.Au début nous étions une douzaine et puis très vite il n\u2019est plus resté que Le Parc, Rossi, Sobrino, Yvaral, Stein et moi.Les Sud-Américains et Yvaral, plus jeunes que moi, venaient plus de l\u2019op-art et de Vasarely alors que je venais de l\u2019art concret et systématique, mais nous étions tout de même très près les uns des autres par rapport à ce qui se faisait à ce moment-là à Paris.Au départ c\u2019est le côté systématique qui a été le point de ralliement, puis ce fut la participation du spectateur.Je n\u2019ai jamais été le plus gros pilier du temple à la participation du spectateur, mais j\u2019étais tout à fait d\u2019accord; c\u2019était surtout Le Parc et Joel Stein qui étaient les plus dynamiques pour organiser ces labyrinthes, ces parcours mouvementés, ces fêtes que devenaient de plus en plus les expositions du groupe.J\u2019ai lu un Points avec un espacement de 5mm, 10mm, 15mm, 20mm, etc.; hauteur 680mm, encre et crayon sur papier, 1977, 68 x 68 cm, collection Jacques Palumbo, Montrtéal, photo Gabor Szilasi.texte d\u2019Agam dans lequel il disait que tout ce que le spectateur trouve en manipulant ses objects, lui Agam l\u2019avait déjà trouvé consciemment ou inconsciemment, mais non, ça n\u2019était pas du tout notre idée que l\u2019on était responsable de ce que trouvait le spectateur.On essayait seulement d\u2019être responsables du déclic qui fait que les spectateurs deviennent créateurs, et c\u2019est tout.Je crois que des choses très positives ont été faites à ce moment-là, des choses éphémères mais dont il reste des documents.On a organisé une journée à Parais dans la rue, en plusieurs endroits; dans certains, c\u2019était du matin au soir et c\u2019était presque hystérique.Après un moment de recul, les gens jouaient avec les choses, les cassaient, faisaient la fête.On était vraiment au point pour réveiller les gens et faire la fête.En avril 1968, on avait prévu d\u2019organiser quelque chose le mois après, et alors, ceux qui ont de la mémoire peuvent se rappeler ce qui s\u2019est passé en mai 1968.Les amateurs nous ont coupé l\u2019herbe sous le pied, et la fête avait pris des proportions telles que notre action aurait pu paraître un peu dérisoire.Ce fut l\u2019une des raisons de la dissolution du groupe, et puis aussi il y avait des options politiques différentes pour les uns et pour les autres.D'autre part c\u2019est toujours facile d\u2019être un groupe uni quand personne n\u2019est une vedette, mais à ce moment-là, le prix de la biennale de Venise avait un peu mis le projecteur sur Le Parc, qui le méritait, d\u2019accord, mais c\u2019est aussi le groupe qui avait eu le prix sans être nommément désigné et cela avait fait une petite cassure.De toute façon le groupe a duré de 1960 à 1968 et être en ménage à six pendant huit ans, c\u2019est déjà beaucoup.Ce qui est intéressant, c\u2019est de voir que vers 1960 des gens soit de mon âge, soit plutôt plus jeunes, qui faisaient une peinture systématique ou au moins antiindividuelle, se sont dit \u201cpuisqu\u2019on fout en l\u2019air l\u2019individu, pourquoi faire un art par un individu?\u201d et cela a semblé possible à ce moment-là de faire un art collectif et anonyme.Des groupes d\u2019artistes comme le Gruppo N à Padoue, Le Gruppo T à Milan, le Gruppo Mid plus tard à Milan également, le groupe Zero en Allemagne et le Groupe de recherche d'art visuel à Paris manifestent tous cette volonté d\u2019un art anonyme et collectif.On faisait des fêtes où chacun amenait des choses à soi qui servaient dans le labyrinthe et on réalisait des oeuvres de participation pour lesquelles c'était impossible de dire que c\u2019était l\u2019un ou l'autre en particulier qui était l\u2019auteur, et ça je crois que ça n\u2019est pas mal.Maintenant on a évolué sans doute différemment, moi je suis beaucoup plus revenu au côté systématique et \u201cminimal\u201d, et la plupart des autres ont continué un côté plus \u201cop-art\u201d et moins systématique.Je ne fais pas de jugements de valeur, je crois que c\u2019est comme ça.\u201d L\u2019absence de composition, une réalisation volontairement neutre, le recours à des systèmes, au hasard, et la revendication d\u2019un rôle actif pour le spectateur, sont autant de caractéristiques de l\u2019oeuvre de Morellet et autant de moyens permettant de faire un art antiromantique.Tout cela correspond en fait à un souci moral de l\u2019artiste ainsi qu\u2019il sera clair après lecture de cet autre extrait d\u2019une conversation entre Morellet et l\u2019auteur de cet article.\u201cSi on prend une boîte de couleur liquide et qu\u2019on la renverse sur une toile, il va se passer quelque chose, et ce sera forcément intéressant.Tout ce qui vient modifier une surface bien blanche comme celle de cette toile, c\u2019est intéressant.À ce moment-là, celui qui va voir ce que j\u2019ai fait va penser des choses, ça lui rappellera des choses de la nature ou ça lui permettra de mieux rentrer en lui-même, ou ça lui paraîtra triste ou gai, je ne sais pas.Et ce que je trouve ahurissant, et ce contre quoi je réagis, c\u2019est que je puisse à ce moment-là croire que je suis le père de ce qui va se passer chez lui, que je suis responsable de l\u2019émotion, de la rêverie, de tout ce que l\u2019on veut que va provoquer la chose que j\u2019ai faite.Et ça c\u2019est l\u2019une des choses qui m\u2019énervent le plus, cette importance que les artistes se sont octroyée depuis le romantisme en croyant d\u2019abord que l\u2019art est une transmission de message et ensuite que ce que reçoit le spectateur c\u2019est ce message que les super-dieux que sont les artistes roman- 6 Phage à 90° d'un arc de cercle sur un rectangle 1 x 2.et Pliage en diagonale d'un arc de cercle sur un rectangle 1 x 2, calque et encre, 1977, 68 x 136 cm chacun, collection particulière, Montréal, photo Gabor Szilasi tiques transmettent consciemment, ou ce qui est encore beaucoup plus fort, inconsciemment.Je crois qu\u2019il y a une façon d\u2019éviter cela, c\u2019est que le procédé de réalisation qui a été suivi soit clair, nommément désigné dans le titre ou apparent dans l'oeuvre même.Quand Duchamp désigne un porte-bouteille, il le fait de telle façon qu\u2019on sait bien que ce porte-bouteille n'a pas été fait par lui et que tout ce qui se passe entre le porte-bouteille et nous, c\u2019est bien entre le porte-bouteille et nous que ça se passe, et non entre Duchamp et nous.Quand Rodtchenko prend des éléments en bois de longueur égale et qu\u2019il les assemble, il y a le système d\u2019assemblage, mais il n\u2019y a pas de composition; tout ce qui fait croire à la poésie ou à la philosophie de l\u2019art est limité au maximum.L\u2019art existe par l\u2019activité du spectateur bien plus que par celle du créateur qui n\u2019est là que pour préparer un emplacement pour que le spectateur amène son pique-nique culturel, sensible, philosophique, etc., qu'il va consommer.Alors les artistes qui jouent au prophète, qui jouent au medium, lien entre des forces cachées, divines ou autres et le pauvre spectateur qui lui n'a pas la chance de rentrer en communication avec ces mondes extraordinaires que seuls les génies peuvent connaître, les artistes qui jouent à celà, je trouve qu\u2019ils sont malhonnêtes et dangereux.Malhonnêtes parce que ce n\u2019est pas vrai, et dangereux parce qu\u2019ils reprennent le même mécanisme que tous les grands hommes mystificateurs ont pris, et que tous les tyrans ont pris, que ça soit Hitler ou Staline.Quoi qu\u2019on dise, Hitler ressemble à Beuys et Beuys à Hitler, même si Beuys n\u2019a aucun penchant pour la dictature (et je sais très bien qu\u2019il est tout à fait contre les idées d\u2019Hitler), mais son idée de faire croire ou de laisser croire à un personnage mystérieux et qui fait des choses incompréhensibles, qu\u2019il faut adorer et qu\u2019on adore \u2014 parce que l\u2019adoration des jeunes pour Beuys en Allemagne est un phénomène que l\u2019on ne retrouve dans aucun autre pays \u2014 c'est quelque chose de dangereux.Tous les gens qui continuent de faire croire qu\u2019il y a des génies, des surhommes, e.t qui font croire à cette mystification sont dangereux.Un artiste-peintre n\u2019est pas dangereux, mais quand on le fait adorer pour une façon d\u2019être qui peut être celle d\u2019un homme politique demain, je trouve cela mauvais.C\u2019est ma seule morale en art, mais c\u2019est important et ça divise pour moi les artistes en deux, d\u2019une part ceux qui prennent une distance vis-à-vis de l\u2019oeuvre d\u2019art et que j\u2019appelle systématiques, et les autres.Et je me sens beaucoup plus prêt d\u2019artistes qui n\u2019utilisent pas la géométrie, mais qui sont systématiques, que d\u2019artistes qui utilisent la géométrie sans être systématiques.Si Lichtenstein agrandit un \u201ccartoon\u201d sans y toucher, \u2014\tce qu\u2019il ne fait pas d\u2019ailleur, \u2014 si Daniel Spoerri colle les reliefs d\u2019un repas sans y toucher, \u2014 ce qu\u2019il fait, \u2014\tl\u2019un et l\u2019autre prennent un recul, prennent une distance, et je trouve cet art \u201csystématique\u201d au sens large; mais si un constructiviste met un petit carré bleu dans un coin et rose dans un autre parce qu\u2019il trouve que c\u2019est mieux comme celà, et bien je le trouve immoral, d\u2019après ma morale à moi.7 Tirets avec 2 interférences (2 rangées), encre sur papier, 1973, 4 x 64 cm, collection Gilles Gheerbrant, photo Gabor Szilasi C\u2019est une frontière que l\u2019on retrouve dans l\u2019art conceptuel qui regroupe des mystiques, des grands-prêtres aussi bien que des gens comme Huebler qui, quand il prend une photo à la TV toutes les dix secondes, ou une photo toutes les minutes en allant à son studio, fait quelque chose de tout à fait clair et net, a une démarche tout à fait systématique.Bien entendu, si on me raconte ce qu\u2019il a fait, ça m\u2019intéresse; voir les photos, ça ne m\u2019intéresse pas tellement.Dibbets, dans cet esprit-là, a su tirer un parti plus visuel de ce principe.Il y a des conceptuels qui ne \u201créalisent\u201d pas comme Lawrence Weiner, mais, comme Dibbets ou Lewitt par exemple, j\u2019ai besoin pour que mon système ou mon idée préconçue soit claire qu\u2019elle soit réalisée.\u201d Pour clore cet article, je voudrais dire qu\u2019il me semble de plus en plus évident que nous sommes les victimes d\u2019une histoire de l\u2019art beaucoup trop polarisée.C\u2019est le propre de l\u2019histoire de l\u2019art que de contribuer à construire des mythes, de dévoiler et d\u2019occulter en même temps, car le mythe, \u201cau sens exact du mot, n\u2019est pas un mensonge ni une fiction.il sert avant tout à cacher ce qu\u2019il désigne, à en interdire l\u2019intelligence en voilant les déterminations concrètes, à simplifier le complexe jusqu\u2019à lui donner la fausse clarté de l\u2019évidence\u201d.L\u2019historien d\u2019art doit, en même temps qu\u2019il contribue plus ou moins consciemment à bâtir ces mythes, les contredire simultanément et sans cesse arracher le voile qu\u2019ils viennent poser inévitablement sur la réalité historique.L\u2019apport de l\u2019historien est de proposer de nouveaux systèmes d\u2019analyse et d\u2019établir des liens dans la matière historique.À cet égard l\u2019une des tâches les plus urgentes en ce moment me semble être de révéler le progrès dans l\u2019art du XXème siècle vers un art de plus en plus consciemment systématique ou génératif et qui libère l\u2019\u201cinvestissement\u201d artistique de tout son côté mystique, de révéler le progrès de l\u2019idée de fonctionnement matériel de l\u2019oeuvre d\u2019art.On mettra ainsi en évidence le développement d\u2019un courant fondamental dans l\u2019art et la théorie de l\u2019art, courant dans lequel Morellet occupe une place de tout premier rang et qui passe par Rodtchenko et ses constructions modulaires en bois de l\u2019hiver 1919-1920, certaines recherches et réflexions fondamentales dont témoignent les cahiers de Paul Klee, l\u2019Unisme Polonais, première grande tentative de ré(un)ification de la forme et du contenu de la peinture, le manifeste de l\u2019Art Concret de Théo van Doesburg en 1930, l\u2019art concret suisse de Bill et Lohse, Morellet justement et puis aussi Kenneth Martin, Steele, Hughes et Lowe en Angleterre, Dekkers, Hilgemann, Struycken et de Vries aux Pays-Bas, Verhaegen en Belgique, Lewitt et dans une certaine mesure Judd et André à New York, Manfred Mohr à Paris et Palumbo à Montréal.¦ NOTES: (1)\tManuscrit conservé dans les archives Rodtchenko à Moscou.Traduction dans le catalogue \u201c 2 Stenberg 2\u201d par A.B.Nakov, édition de la galerie Chauvelin, Paris 1975.(2)\tCe problème est traité de façon intéressante dans les premiers \u201cshaped canvases\u201d qui possèdent des structures simples et où le rapport entre la forme et le support est un rapport formatif élémentaire alors que, par la suite, il devient un rapport purement formel, et donc moins prégnant.Les \u201ceccentric shaped canvases\u201d (qui renvoient non plus à Morellet, mais aux oeuvres réalisées à Berlin entre 1921 et 1924 par l\u2019artiste hongrois Lazlo Péri et aux caractéristiques stylistiques des vorticistes anglais) marquent une première régression dans l\u2019oeuvre de Stella, car s'ils conservent un côté concret d\u2019objets matériels, ils sont vraiment eccentriques et non systématiques.(3)\tMorellet découvre ces idées en 1951, par des reproductions et des coupures de presse qu\u2019il ramène d\u2019un voyage au Brésil où Bill venait d\u2019avoir une importante exposition rétrospective au Musée de Sao Paulo.(4)\tOn voit ici, d\u2019emblée, une différence essentielle avec Sol Lewitt dont les \u201cwall drawings\u201d sont bien entendu systématiques, mais donnent une place importante à l\u2019exécution sensuelle à la main, avec tout ce que celà peut comporter de tremblement et donc de charge poétique, même si ce n\u2019est pas la main de l\u2019artiste qui réalise, mais celle d'un ou de plusieurs assistants.Voir par exemple cette déclaration significative de Steve Reich sur les \u201cwall drawings\u201d de Lewitt (in Studio International, Nov.Dec.1976, p.301): \u201cI think that he very often has other people making the marks, but the fact that it is realized by hand will create something which is not perfunctory because the people will take care in doing it.And the net effect is of seeing very beautiful modulated surface.\u201d Il convient de remarquer que Morellet a lui-aussi réalisé des dessins sur des murs, des façades de musées, des parois de verre etc., mais les lignes que comportent ces dessins éphémères sont encore, de propos délibéré, des lignes neutres constituées d\u2019adhésifs noirs.Morellet s\u2019est amusé à en poser non seulement sur de belles parois lisses, mais aussi à l\u2019occasion sur des plâtres baroques ornementaux, ou sur une sculpture (inamovible) qui se trouvait dans son aire d\u2019exposition et qu'il a quadrillée, et neutralisée par la même occasion.(5) (5)\tEntretien avec Jan Leering dans le catalogue de l\u2019exposition Morelletau C.N.A.C.de Paris en 1971.(6)\tLa clarté des titres de Morellet fait contraste avec certaines des explications/instructions de Lewitt qui ont l\u2019air volontairement compliquées.Voir par exemple le texte de \u201cLocation of a Rectangle\", 1974 (in Art in America, Sept.Oct.1975, p.48).Il s\u2019agit de toute évidence d\u2019un texte de description de procédure, mais il est tellement complexe, et à toute fin pratique illisible qu'on se demande à quoi il sert.D'ailleurs dans ce cas particulier le résultat est visuellement si peu intéressant qu\u2019on n\u2019a pas envie de faire l\u2019effort de lire et de comprendre.Il y a là quelque chose de trouble et de profondément troublant.(7)\tTranscription d'une conversation avec l\u2019auteur de cet article.3 toiles de 4 m de périmètre avec une diagonale horizontale, huile sur toile, 1973, 200 x 200 cm, 77 x 123 cm et 33 x 167 cm, collection particulière, France.8 SUZY LAKE \u2014 IMPOSITIONS by Diana Nemiroff Suzy Lake\u2019s exhibition «im POSITIONS » at the Art Gallery of Ontario is without doubt the most intense and coherent manifestation of her preoccupation with the idea of identity and the correlative notions of vulnerability and powerlessness we\u2019ve seen yet.Through four separate series of photographs it coherently articulates different aspects, emotional, psychological and physical, of the theme; this thematic coherence is underscored by the way each series relates to one another through changes in scale and the consistency of the medium, which is black and white photography throughout.The basic situation in each series \u2014 Lake\u2019s bound body \u2014 is subtly reinforced and symbolically enlarged by the settings so as to provoke intense identification on the part of the viewer, the result of what Les Levine has called, «The conceptual process of the artist, the conceptual process of the viewer (overlapping) in such a way that they «lock in », like a rangerfinder on a camera.\u201d1 Levine says elsewhere in the same article for Camerart, the catalogue for the group show at Optica in 1974: \u201cThe camera artist has to respond to the underlying cultural anxiety of our society.And somehow he also has to shed light on that anxiety.He has to expose that anxiety in such a way that people can see it as an anxiety and not take it to be part of an equilibrium.\u201d2 Now this is a call for the artist to be more than a collector of images, whether his interest in these images is voyeuristic or even highly sympathetic.There has been a tendency among photographers to extrapolate from the apparent literalness of the camera image a journalistic pose of detachment, an attempt not to step between the viewer and the intrinsic force of the image.This is reckoning without the voracious capacity of the viewer for exotica from which he implicitly excludes himself.The images are consumed like so many chocolates in a candy box.On the other hand the explicitly self-referential imagery of much \u201cbody art\u201d has often alienated the viewer, provoking in him an intense revulsion which he may then attribute to the \u201csickness\u201d of the artist (from which he dissociates himself).It seems to me that in the territory of self-referential art, Suzy Lake\u2019s work has occupied a kind of middle ground, being neither terribly confessional nor coolly detached.Although she uses herself as her subject, the fact that it is her is not that important in the final image (except perhaps in the early, more autobiographical \u201cTransformation\u201d series).Where it is significant is in the ongoing creative process where actually experiencing the situation is a crucial catalyst for her own understanding of what she is doing.The final image is usually one in which her identity is not insisted upon.Her face is frequently blurred or obscured and the clothing she wears is deliberately neutral.This tends to de-particularize the situation and facilitate the identification of the spectator with the figure in the photos.Viewer empathy is also encouraged in Lake\u2019s work because it is not oriented toward performance, although some of the story-boards or the video tape in this AGO show could have been conceived as performances (though they were not).Performances have a tendency to set up a dramatic space which is charged with the performer\u2019s own energy and thus in a way keep the spectator out.Nevertheless the nature of viewer identification in the work in the present show is very complex and deserves some close attention, which must begin with a thorough description of the works themselves.The first series consists of ten untitled photographs which form a group because they are all of the same size and show Lake in the same setting, although they do not exactly form a sequence, nor reveal any definite progress in her movements.They are not mural-sized as are the second group of photos and the viewer is inclined to approach each one individually to examine it.The setting is undefined, ambiguous: a worn, bare floor, a shabby wall painted a dark colour that is now flaking and chipped.Lake, dressed neutrally in a light sweater, dark pants and light socks, stands against the wall, bound around the legs, hands and torso.Because of the slow shutter speed of the camera her movements are blurred and we see that she is twisting and turning, struggling against her bonds.All we can make out of her face is the occasional grimace.In this open undefined space, her small vertical figure suggests her vulnerability.She is placed like a target in a shooting gallery against the wall.So the notion of ambivalence comes in.If she is the target, the victim, is the viewer then somehow the aggressor?We have been implicated in her powerlessness.Technically, the image emphasizes our ambiguous involvement.The low light and slow shutter speed of the hand-held camera have resulted in the blurring of the whole image which creates a sense of dizziness, of vertigo.The softness of focus and the richness of the blacks which have been chemically treated to warm them up convey an hallucinatory, somehow unreal dream-like world.Through the sequence of images time seems to pass yet stands still.The total effect of this series is one of dislocation.The powerlessness and vulnerability that are indicated by the bands which bind Lake\u2019s body refer not so much to physical reality, despite the physical symbol, as emotional reality.The second series consists of thirteen very large photos, nine on one side of the gallery and four on the other.In every way these are aggressive images.Even their being hung on opposite gallery walls, so that the space in between becomes charged for the spectator as he passes through it, contributes to his feeling of personal implication in their content.While the first series seem to communicate a vaguely sinister, slightly unreal world, these images present a pressingly real space which is fraught with meaning in the context of Lake\u2019s situation.Once again she stands bound and struggling, this time at the end of a corridor of storage lockers such as one finds in apartment house basements.Immediately the narrowness of the space in which she stands, bounded on either side by the tall slatted doors of the lockers, at the back by the masonry wall and in front by the position of the camera, sets up an intolerably claustrophobic atmosphere.The sense of prison-like confinement is reinforced by the locks on the lockers (the very fact they are lockers, of course, underlining her bondage).Once again Lake is wearing non-descript clothing which, as well as contributing to a sense of anonymity, registers in the photographs as a medium grey which fits in with the overall grey tonality of the images.This evenness of tonality, and the lack of an apparent ex- terior light source, suggesting captivity, no exist, is extremely effective in setting up the mood of the works.In other words, the visual aesthetic of these images is subservient to their content, without (and this I think is an important point) being a neutral or even negative quality.The light here eschews both romantic contrasts of dark and light and journalistic haphazardness.While Lake\u2019s work has always been conceptual, in the sense of propositional, her photographs have seldom been merely documentary.She has usually manipulated the images somehow, and this ties in with her desire to represent as clearly and forcefully as possible her intentions.Her use of composite imagery and slow shutter speeds to reflect movement and convey a sense of process are familiar to those who know her \u201cTransformation\u201d series, or the \u201cChoreographed Puppets\u201d works.Here also she has intervened, this time manipulating the image by stretching the negative so that every other photo shows an elongated, attenuated image.As the pictures are hung, a rhythm is set up which itself serves to create a sense of temporal duration.The problem this time, I think, was to deal with a fairly static situation, while still expressing the kinaesthetic sensations Lake experienced while being bound.The more active jerks and swings of the \u201cPuppet\u201d series lent themselves to the slow shutter technique whereas here it became important to find a visual equivalent for a manipulation almost more psychological than physical.So the tampering with the image, the tortuous elongation of her figure implies the constriction in which no independent movement of the arms and legs is possible as well as being a symbol for the psychological violence of the situation.Moreover, the stretching introduces an undulating twist into the vertical wood slats of the lockers, thus echoing Lake\u2019s movements and activating the environment.The effect on the spectator is one of oppression.The images lined up on either wall, alternating the longer stretched photos with the shorter, untretched ones seem like so many mirrors in an amusement park hall of mirrors.Only we see reflected not ourselves but a grimacing, struggling, bound person.We feel both implicated, being apparently in the place where an aggressor would be, and sympathetic since the images fairly bombard us with information about the feeling of confinement.The third series consists of six sets of four photos hung one beneath the other so as to form a continuous image broken into four segments.The setting is a narrow interior staircase at the top of which we see part of a door.Lake\u2019s body, bound in a crouched position to fit the confines of the staircase is seen bumping down the stairs.The slow shutter speed of the camera causes her image to be blurred and we know she is really falling, not just lying on the stairs.The vertical sequence of the photographs in each set suggests a corresponding sequence of movement in the images, although when scrutinized, we find this not to be the case.Her body, in fact, is now at the top, now at the bottom, or in the middle of the stairs in no particular order through the series.Also, the strong visual imagery of the stairs whose shiny metal edge stands out sharply from the murky background, creates an overwhelming sense of unity to the total picture.Nevertheless, the sequencing works to establish a virtual rather than literal passage of time, while the blurr- 9 IMPOSITIONS, 9 sections, photo mural, 1977 (détail) - fl ing of Lake\u2019s body extends the movement into the present.This seems a good time to introduce a brief parenthesis regarding the relation of these images to Marey\u2019s photographs of the trajectory paths of moving bodies.Despite the different intentions of these and Lake\u2019s photographs, (Marey, whose interests were entirely scientific, developed the chronophotograph to advance his research into kinds of physiological movement) they start from similar philosophical positions.Marey\u2019s photographs reflect the position then being advanced as a challenge to the results of Muybridge\u2019s instantaneous photographs, that time is in reality not a succession of moments but a question of duration.Theories of the \u2018persistence of vision\u2019 came down on the side of the blurred image as the more truthfull one.With Lake\u2019s work these theories are, of course, assumed, with the additional reference to aesthetic theories of process.If a single photographic image is not adequate here, and as the serial nature of these images shows it clearly is not, this is not only because of the necessity of documenting movement, but also to make visible the processes behind the images.But to return to the stair series.Essentially it relates visually to the first series, the rich contrasts of black and white in each being opposed to the even greyness of the locker room works.The variation in lighting in each is more than just the inevitable results of the choice of setting, although it is inherent in this, of course.Here the gorgeousness of the photographs serves, at least initially, to camouflage or rather to counterpoint the real scariness of Lake\u2019s situation.If the other series conveyed the emotional and psychological aspects of powerlessness, this one exploits her sheer physical vulnerability.To a certain extent also, we were confronted before with more symbolical situations; now there has been a move towards a more literal embodiment of the anxiety Lake is dealing with.Here it\u2019s a question of pain and the image has to try to avoid alienating the viewer by arousing the defence mechanism of revulsion which I mentioned earlier.The image literally seduces us into an identification with Lake.The fourth group consists of two sets of three photographs in which Lake lies on a floor bound in a fetal position.The white walls of the room, their bareness, seem to underline the vulnerability of the situation.Of all the pieces, however, this strikes me as the least situational and the most iconic.It communicates the yearning to return to a state prior to all conflict, while just as surely indicating how intolerable such confinement of movement both psychic and physical would be.But because of this iconic quality I believe it to be less successful in the present format then the others.Here in my opinion the sequential repetition of the image seems less necessary, and therefore slightly mechanical.The final work in the show is a video tape from 1975, \u201cChoreography on a Dotted Line\u201d.Although earlier, this tape fits into the present show as it explores similar notions of confinement and vulnerability.Thirteen minutes long, it very simply follows Lake as she, lying on the floor, first rools herself up in some one hundred feet of fabric and then unrolls.The situation is made more arduous for her and more mysterious for the viewer because Lake has set herself the condition of keeping herself framed in the monitor so that her torso, wrapped in layers of material, is virtually all we see until the end.Through the sound track which consists of Lake\u2019s panting breathing as she performs her tiring task, an interesting aural dimension is added to the whole exhibition, somehow enlarging the visual struggle depicted.Having tried as far as possible to describe the works in this show and also to suggest something of the dialogue in which they engage the spectator, I would like to put them into the context of Lake\u2019s earlier work and examine the sorts of questions they bring up.Looking over the \u201ccorpus\u201d, it is clear that while her central preoccupation with identity has remained consistent, the emphasis has shifted somewhat.An early work like the \u201cNatural Way to Draw\u201d storyboard where Lake symbolically erases her features with white makeup such as the mime wears, and then proceeds to \u201cdraw\u201d her face and finally apply ordinary makeup has a dual intention.On the one hand she is dealing with a sort of role-playing which is a universal cultural phenomenon: we must \u201cput on our face\u201d before we go out; we \u201cput on different faces\u201d for different people.On the other hand, she is attempting to find a plastic metaphor for the fundamental creative situation of bringing something out of nothing.The interesting thing is that by using the image of the mask she is poking around the notion of what is real, both in the art and the non-art sense.But the whole thing has at the same time a tongue in cheek, witty aspect, as do the results of the permuta- 10 tion and combinations of Lake\u2019s features with those of her friends in the \u201cTransformation\u201d series.In the gamut from the witty to the oppressive image in Lake\u2019s work, the \u201cChoreographed Puppets\u201d seem to lie midway.In as much as the puppet is associated with the theatre and with playfulness, its connotations are light-hearted.Yet the puppet is also the controlled, the manipulated, and it is precisely the image of powerlessness and surrunder it evokes that Lake is trying to get at.The surrender has two aspects: firstly, the voluntary surrender involved in her initiating the project and getting into the puppet\u2019s harness; secondly, the involuntary surrender as her body twitches and turns in response to the jerks of the straps.That this series should be called \u201cChoreographies\u201d is significant, for what is dance, or art for that matter, but ritualized movement or gesture?That is, these are made meaningful by the imposition of a scheme, an intention that is distinguished from pure motor impulse by a directed awareness of passage through time or space.It is interesting that Degas who was often the observer of the ebb and flow of contemporary life, interested himself in the ballet precisely because of the constraints it placed on the body, its artificiality.Nevertheless, Lake\u2019s intentions are not formalist but didactic.Instead of choreography, or planned movement, we get information about movement that is literally in the hands of others.Generally speaking, in the current work we find a move away from the more explicit theatricality of the puppet series.Yet we are clearly not dealing with a real situation, nor does Lake intend any such illusion, for she is not a journalist.But to get at the kind of \u2014Z.anxiety she is talking about, whose implicit terms are freedom and unfreedom, she has had to find an exagerated activity which will manage to transcend the neutral state, to destroy the mundane equilibrium of everyday life which disguises that anxiety.At the same time the viewer must be able to accept the authenticity of the situation.So we take the bonds and the settings in these photographs as symbolic.What is it then that validates them?Herbert Read once said that: \u201cTo the human person himself his own coherence is an organic coherence intuitively based on the real world of sensation.\"3 Thus Lake, by using her own body and attempting to make real her physical sensations through the camera\u2019s slow shutter speed, stretching the negatives, etc.communicates through the viewer\u2019s empathetic reaction via his own body.As Merleau-Ponty has observed: \u201cIt is through my body that I understand other people, just as it is through my body that I perceive \u2018things\u2019.The meaning of a gesture thus \u2018understood\u2019 is not behind it, it is intermingled with the structure of the world outlined by the gesture, and which I take up on my own account.\u201d4 The most recent work thus enjoys a more intensely empathetic relationship with the viewer.Though still didactic and quasi-narrative in structure, it tends, moreover, to implicate him as the other.In the \u201cPuppet\u201d or the \u201cTransformation\u201d series the other was given to us, being actually present in the image: now we can imagine ourselves in this role.Hence the ambiguity of the relationship, and our awareness that in some way, the bonds are self-imposed.A colour work in the Sable-Castelli Gallery (Lake\u2019s Toronto dealer, who is showing some smaller works at the same time as the Art Gallery of Ontario show) provides an interesting contrast to the \u201cImpositions\u201d pieces.While the others are didactic, this one is lyrical.We see three views of Lake jumping in what appears to be a garden, and the camera has swung up in a movement that echoes her own, so that the whole image is blurred.There can be no doubt that, while the photos are undeniably attractive, they lack the tension of the pieces at the AGO, as if the psychological drama of the latter were indispensable for them to speak to us.One wonders if an actual image of transcendence is possible or whether it can only be implicitly present within the context of the work itself, through the conforming of the project to the possible and the constant attempt to extend the limits of the latter.» FOOTNOTES 1.\tLes Levine, \u201cCamera Art\u201d, Camerart, exhibition catalogue of group show at Optica, 1974, p.17.2.\tIbid., p.11.3.\tQuoted by Harold Rosenberg, The Tradition of the New, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), p.135.4.\tM.Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, trans.by Colin Smith (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962), p 186.11 Audio-visual installations, when they\u2019re effectively produced, can seem so simple.The two new works installed January 15 \u2014 February 12 at the Vancouver Art Gallery, one each by Noel Harding and Eric Cameron, are examples.Each has a room to itself, at opposite ends of the gallery, bracketing as it were the other three exhibitions currently on display (Alex Katz, Adolph Gottlieb, and the National Gallery\u2019s ANOTHER DIMENSION II) and each involves video as well as other elements.Even though these pieces were produced under considerable pressures of time and distance, and incorporate some complex issues and perceptions, the works\u2019 cleanness of presentation, their insistence on quality and clarity on all levels, make them surprisingly accessible and yet intriguing for viewers.Technology has been made to serve the artists\u2019 needs and ends.Eric Cameron\u2019s KEEPING MARLENE OUT OF THE PICTURE \u2014 AND LAWN comprises three video monitors placed at eye level on sculpture stands, and one piece of garden-variety grass growing in a clay pot, on a similar stand.These objects are located carefully in an apparently empty room, each of the monitors facing outwards at an angle so that the screens of all three cannot be seen from any single point in the room.What is actually seen on each monitor screen seems to be the view \u201cthrough\u201d that screen.as if the picture tube were a window rather than an emitter of images.The images in question are all separate closed-circuit video loops, shot on location in the Vancouver gallery precisely from the spot in which they are now placed, and on first glance one can suppose that the views are \u201clive\u201d, the result of some hidden closed-circuit camera recording them for simultaneous playback.This is not the case, however, for the images are not real-time at all, but instead are highly-edited assemblages showing a woman, elegant in dress and high heels, walking across the floor, through the doors, back and forth in front of the (once-present) camera.But as soon as the model (Marlene) reaches the camera\u2019s view, she is cleanly and promptly edited out of the picture.The sound for the images is coincident with the picture and much more \u201cvisible\u201d, in the sense that we can keep track of the sounds relevant to the series of actions even though we cannot see the different pictures in all of the monitors at once.It is only the fragments of sound that assure us that we really did see her, albeit fleetingly.There are words, parts of sentences, between Marlene and the artist (Cameron) behind the camera, but these too are so fragmentary as to be mere signs of the conversation we are not permitted to overhear and the people we are not quite permitted to see.The tease is specific, and the viewer watches all the more closely in his attempt to sort out the activities, to see with his eyes as well as with his ears.In the end, however, the edits are quicker than the eye and the viewer is left to complete the information byquesswork.The potted lawn is another kind of tease: a witness to the original action (we can see it in place in its recorded videotape, on the monitor matching up with its present location), and a remainder from the past more complete than the fragments of Marlene\u2019s image and sound.LAWN specifies location and duration, continuity, and also the sort of determined whimsy that would put a bit of live greenery on a sculpture stand in an art gallery.Perhaps the whimsy is in the mind of the viewer, but LAWN seems so curiously juxtaposed, so surprising in the otherwise greyed and austere surroundings, so silent and self-possessed in the face of fleeting glimpses of video image/sound, that it serves to underline the context and content of the rest of the piece.The gallery is unremittingly grey: dark grey painted plywood floor, white walls, grey and white video images, grey sculpture stands.All the machinery and wires are hidden.Only the crack of heels on floor, the slam of door, and the daub of colour represented by clay pot and green LAWN, serve as punctuation.The punctuation livens up the text.KEEPING MARLENE OUT OF THE PICTURE-AND LAWN, by Eric Cameron, 1978, video installation at the Vancouver Art Gallery Temporal Realities: by Peggy Gale KEEPING MARLENE OUT OF THE PICTURE \u2014 AND LAWN, by Eric Cameron, 1978 11 It ¦ ; V :7Tlî is: MOEL HARDING % \\ - v Noel Harding\u2019s ONCE UPON THE IDEA OF TWO has more variety of parts, and offers a different sort of complexity to the viewer.The piece is made up physically of a large paper screen (about 10x16 feet), with two hanging gauze panels to one side at the front; a wooden chair with blue pyjama top hanging on the outside corner is in place just off-centre, in front of the screen.A live video camera sits next to the film projector and connects with a playback monitor to the right of the large film projection screen.Behind the paper screen, out of sight to those watching the film, is a second video monitor playing a pre-recorded two-minute tape of Harding standing in front of the film installation and introducing the film contents: I packed these pyjamas in my suitcase to bring them here.! also flew this chair on the airplane so you could sit on it.Ron had come up to the studio to fix the pipes and he was quite busy but he was in a good mood.I asked him to rehearse being Barbara\u2019s portrait although he had never met Barbara.I asked him to pretend to sit on the chair.Barbara had arrived late.She had to pay a traffic ticket and she wasn\u2019t in a particularly good mood.I asked her to pose as my portrait.I didn't tell her that Ron had pretended to be her.I asked her to sit on the chair.There are three sources, then, of visual information apart from the real objects in the gallery space: the film on the large paper screen, the live video to the right of this screen, and the recorded video loop behind the film screen.And there are two sources of recorded sound: first, the (all non-verbal) noise of footsteps, rustling paper, moving objects in the film, coming from a speaker next to the film projector, and second, Harding\u2019s explanation of the events leading up to this installation, which seems to come from behind the film image and acts as a sort of voice-over for the film.The fact that the lengths of these two sound loops are different makes the sound mix as-symetrical and unpredictable, and adds richness and complexity to the image relationships.The wraparound sense of sound, coming from two distinct locations and bearing two separate types of information, gives the viewer a feeling that he is right in the middle of all this activity, and this feeling is intensified by the type of activity taking place in the film.A total of six people appear in the film, including Harding, and the action is quick, purposeful, rather humourous: striding back and forth, moving props, rolling up the paper screen (prefiguring the screen presently used for projection) which was the backdrop for the filming in Harding\u2019s studio.The gallery viewer finds himself in the same location he would have if the film were being shot right then, and the large paper screen, the gauze panels, the chair and pyjama top are all there as props in the gallery as well as being there on film.This undeniably enhances the three-dimensionality and sense of perceptual space being explored within the normally two-dimensional film situation.The interplay of scale set up by the film\u2019s life-size images is underlined by the action of shadows, both actual and filmed, as they grow and diminish with distance from the paper screen.The reality/illusion interface is further explored if one sits on the chair placed as a prop in front of the paper screen, as Harding has suggested.One is aware of all the activity on the paper screen, as people seem to pass back and forth behind the chair, but one can also see portions of this activity on the gauze panels just in front and to one side of the chair and screen.And the entire picture \u2014 film, chair, gauze, and live viewer sitting on the chair \u2014 is shown live on the video monitor and can be seen clearly from the position on the chair.Getting up from that chair, and seeing the film image (on the video monitor) of Barbara still sitting on that chair, is a little uncanny: rather like seeing one\u2019s body depart from one\u2019s soul.and live on video! The scale and texture of film images, live people, filmed or real shadows, are disconcertingly similar when reported on the video tube.KEEPING MARLENE OUT OF THE PICTURE \u2014 AND LAWNand ONCE UPONTHE IDEA OF TWO were conceived separately, and at a distance.The works were not originally planned for concurrent exhibition.And yet their appearance together at Vancouver (and subsequent exhibition during 1978 at Winnipeg, Ottawa and Halifax) suggest a number of points of comparison, both in intention and in effect.In both the Cameron and Harding pieces, prerecorded loops are used; Cameron has three separate video loops, recorded on location in the space they presently occupy, and Harding has a two-minute tape loop, a seven-minute film loop, and a live video camera-monitor closed circuit.Both the installations are full of activity: purposeful, noisy, yet somehow arbitrary.The interaction of people and space is necessary to create the illusion of present and ongoing activity, and in both cases the illusion is highly succesj-ful.Cameron has re-presented the area of recording, and Harding has re-presented the activity of recording; both have employed props from the original situation to heighten the illusion of currency Keeping Marlene out of the Picture \u2014 and Lawn, Eric Cameron.Installation diagram.Once Upon the Idea of Two Noel Harding.Installation diagram.13 .- for this recording-activity.Traffic patterns are maintained, as a viewer is now placed naturally in the position he would have occupied if the filming and/or taping were taking place there at that moment; the physical reality suggests a temporal reality and coincidence that is quite disarming.In both cases, SOUND is used particularly effectively, to recreate the presence of people now departed; the gallery viewer is surrounded by sound, and the generators of that sound effect may be filled in by the imagination.One does not feel alone in the gallery.Moreover, the viewer feels his presence was planned from the outset; he finds himself playing the role assigned to him by the artist, and playing it naturally and without effort.There is a curious comfort attendant to this sense of care and correctness, this feeling of doing what is expected, naturally.Yet the viewer\u2019s position in the two installations is quite different.In Harding\u2019s ONCE UPON THE IDEA OF TWO the viewer easily assumes a role as member of the audience, both in the gallery space and, implicitly, in the original recording as well.The studio environment of the making of the film, the ordinariness of the events enacted, the numbers of people involved, the colour presentation in life-size scale, all help to make the content of the piece seem very public.And the normal traffic patterns in the gallery, the location of doors and projector/camera relative to the body of the installation, further assert the logic of the viewer\u2019s presence.The use of props from the filming (chair, gauze panels etc, as discussed above) and Harding\u2019s spoken encouragement to sit on the chair, combine with the viewer\u2019s reappearance on closed-circuit video to emphasize the viewer as necessary participant in the completed whole.With Cameron\u2019s KEEPING MARLENE OUT OF THE PICTURE the sense is rather different.Rather than feel a welcome part of studio bustle, the feeling here is that one\u2019s proper place as viewer is on the outside of the activity, around the gallery perimeter, looking-but-not-touching.Marlene has kept out of the picture (unaware as well as out of sight, one might surmise) and the viewer is psychologically barred from interrupting what is essentially a private interaction between two people.To walk into the centre of the gallery where KEEPING MARLENE OUT OF THE PICTURE Was recorded would seem a violation of that space, an intrusion on territory occupied by Marlene as model and by Cameron as artist.The viewer is subtly aware of his role as voyeur, and finds his response including asingular sense of self-awareness aswell.Cameron's piece has less surface complexity, but one feels the dense inner core of the work.He is working with layers of time, splitting and juxtaposing occurrences in synthetic time sequences that are very controlled and sophisticated.He has removed himself from physical appearance in KEEPING MARLENE OUT OF THE PICTURE \u2014 AND LAWN, but his mental processes and visual/temporal perceptions give the piece its logic and its shape.Harding on the other hand employs a manipulation of space.Time considerations are important in an assessment of ONCE UPON THE IDEA OF TWO, but the central ingredient is spatial juxtaposition: the studio ambient with its paper backdrop is revealed to be that of the gallery, and the juxtapositions of public and private spaces, film and video representations, differences in scale and texture and colour, are all discussed in this \u201creproduced reality\u201d.The two works operate on several levels, and the artists are fully aware of their task and intentions.These are subtle and elegant pieces, and their simplicity of first appearance is only an invitation to a closer investigation.¦ mm INDEPENDENT FILM, EXPERIMENTAL FILM, AVANT-GARDE FILM: A CLARIFICATION by John W.Locke The phrases \u201cIndependent Film,\u201d \u201cExperimental Film\u201d and \u201cAvant-Garde Film\u201d are often used interchangeably in English.I have tended to follow this practice of being somewhat sloppy when using these phrases: When someone asked me what is the difference between these types of film, I would respond that there are not three different types of films, rather there are three different phrases used to refer to one type of film.Recently I have begun to question my own thinking about these three phrases, and this essay is a consequence of that thinking.Phrases in a language are used to talk about the world and often, but not always, thinking about the phrases we use to talk about the world can increase our understanding of the world.Language did not come into existence by fiat; new phrases come into use gradually to help us deal with the world and seemingly synonymous phrases can sometimes be discovered to have meanings differing in subtle and interesting ways.The related phrases may have come into use to make it possible to draw fine distinctions, and these distinctions can be valuable ones to understand.A surprising aspect of closely related phrases is that even though they may be seen to be subtlely different in meaning when we think about them carefully, they may still be in general used without precision.There is a gap between the potential for precision built into language and the careless way in which it is used.One of the methods I used to approach the independent \u2014 experimental \u2014 avant-garde distinction in film was to ask whether these distinctions were made in other arts.Is there independent music, experimental music, avant-garde music?Is there independent theatre, experimental theatre, avant-garde theatre?My method was the traditional one of armchair philosophy: I thought about these questions.I also discussed them with others and read criticism of the arts looking for uses of these phrases.This thinking left me with two questions which seemed so curious that I want to pursue them: Why is there no experimental painting?Experimental theatre and experimental music seem to exist, at least in the sense of being discussed, but experimental painting is not mentioned.The second question is why is there no independent music or theatre or painting?In fact why is the only \u201cindependent\u201d art form independent film (and perhaps independent video)?II Why is there no experimental painting?Simply put, the answer in that there is not enough non-experimental painting.To understand this, think about what the world of painting is like: Painters tend to struggle for years before they receive any income from their work.They see their work in relation to earlier painting in the history of art and in relation to work exhibited in galleries and museums.They know that they may be quite successful in terms of critical responses and gallery shows and yet still not be able to support themselves through the sale of their paintings.Success might include being able to make a living by painting, but unqualified success would be to become part of the history of the medium, to be in museum collections and ultimately to be in the art history books.Unqualified success would be to produce work which has consequences, which changes the direction of painting, which influences.Money is nice, even necessary, but to be an important figure in the history of the art of painting is the goal.This sketch of the world of painting is idealized: It is of considerable importance to a painter not to starve.But the sketch contains a core of truth.Painters do see their success and their work in terms of the past and future of their medium.Painting is not something one decides to do as a career offering good prospects for future employment like accounting or engineering.To be a painter is to be an artist, unless of course one is a house painter.Actually house painters cause no difficulties for the understanding of the world of painting which I have just offered.No one confuses house painters with artists.Similarly a billboard painter or a painter producing a representation of a product for an advertisement creates no confusion.We know that these workers are painting, but they are not painters in the sense I have sketched.These painters are commercial artists, rather than simply artists.Language reflects the world; our phrase for referring to these painters and their work comes equipped with the qualifier needed to make the needed distinction.My point is that these commercial painters are easily distinguished from the painters I have been discussing.A critic, or even a journalist, writing about the state of painting in Quebec does not need to explain that it is not house painting or advertising painting or billboard painting which will be discussed.The qualification would be superfluous, redundant.We know that painting as a fine art is to be discussed.So much for the world of painting, but what about theatre, music and film?The world of theatre contrasts with that of painting in significant ways.Think about the Broadway theatre in New York.Most of this theatre is explicitly commercial: It was written, produced and directed with an aim towards entertaining a large audience and making a profit.A play will be opened in a preview and then rewritten if the audience does not like it.There is a large audience for theatre, and this mass audience is seeking entertainment.A typical theatre audience in New York would consist largely of businessmen and their wives looking for a night\u2019s entertainment and tourists determined to experience the New York theatre with its stars and spectacle.This audience would not know what you were talking about if you mentioned art.They would not know the name of the director of the play they were seeing.I am inclined to refer to this type of theatre as commercial theatre, but this is not a standard way of talking about it.The Broadway theatre is Theatre.This commercial theatre has a place in contemporary critical writing about performed theatre at least equal to the place given to historical works or contemporary non-commercial works.The front page of a newspaper\u2019s art and entertainment section \u2014 notice the title \u2014 will not distinguish between Neil Simon, Richard Foreman and Brecht.It is as if the latest Molinari show was critically considered side-by-side with the latest Labatt\u2019s billboard.It would never happen in dealing with painting; it is the ordinary situation in theatre.If music is considered, the situation closely parallels that of theatre.There is certainly an entrenched classical music establishment, but there are also \u201cpops\u201d orchestras, rock and Muzak.We are surrounded by music, most of which has little to do with music as an art.Again it is commercial music, and it dominates in terms of critical writings and concert hall bookings.Turn on your radio and listen as you swing the dial from one end to the other.You will hear what I mean.The music world is like the world of theatre and unlike the world of painting.If you begin to read contemporary criticism of theatre and music, you will notice that experimental theatre and experimental music are discussed.I understand this usage of \u201cexperimental\u201d to be the critics\u2019 way of clarifying what they are talking about by specifying what they are not talking about.They are not discussing the commercial theatre and music which I just indicated dominated performance and critical writing in these areas.Experimental theatre and experimental music exist because non-experimental theatre and non-experimental music not only exist but dominate.At this point I have just given a reason why experimental theatre and experimental music exist, but I have not discussed what characterizes these forms in a positive 16 sense.They are not commercial forms, but what are they?One method of approaching this question is to return to the discussion of painting, remembering that the phrase \u201cexperimental painting\u201d is not in use because it is not needed.It is not needed because compared to music and theatre, all painting is in effect experimental painting.The aspect of painting on which I want to concentrate is its tendency to be about its own medium.By this I mean that paintings, whether representational or non-representational, ?re now seen to be about painting more than they are about the world.If we want to learn about the world, we look at the world, prod it with an experiment or read a book; if we look at a painting, our primary interest is in the painting\u2019s organized forms and its relation to other paintings.Of course we may get information about, and understanding of, the world from looking at a painting, but this information and understanding is not in itself sufficient to account for our interest in painting.Write an essay about what you learned about the world by looking at a painting.My prediction is that it will be a pretty flimsy essay.If your response is that you gained ineffable knowledge from looking at a painting, my only response is this: Ineffable knowledge has always seemed like a nonsense concept to me.I have always thought that the extreme lack of content, this concentration on its own medium, was one of the reasons for the limited popularity of non-representational painting.When you stand in front of a non-representational painting, you either appreciate it as a painting or you will not appreciate it.There are no learning/understanding games to play to amuse yourself as there are in front of a representational painting.For example people with no sensibility for painting can amuse themselves in front of a Bruegel, the Elder, with no difficulty, but they would not be able to find anything to do in front of an Ellsworth Kelly.But even representational paintings are primarily appreciated as objects which are about the medium of painting rather than about the world.Something has obviously gone wrong with a method of appreciating a painting which can equally well be based on seeing a black and white reproduction as it can on seeing the original painting.Most content based appreciation of representational paintings can be based on examining a reproduction and thus seem to be an enervated appreciation.If I am correct and painting is in general appreciated as an art form which is about its own medium, so what?What does this have to do with experimental film?Actually when I think about other forms such as music and theatre I do find an interesting connection with painting.The music and theatre which are referred to as experimental music and experimental theatre are precisely those examples of music and theatre which are most explicitly about their own medium.To call music and theatre experimental is to claim that they share with painting the characteristic of being about their own mediums.Taking this one step further, the same thing can be said about film: Experimental films are those films which are primarily appreciated as being about their own medium, as being about film.Thus the final results of thinking about the question \u201cWhy is there no experimental painting?\u201d is that I have reached an understanding of an essential characteristic of experimental film, and I have come to understand a particular way in which painting, experimental music, experimental theatre and experimental film are related.Ill Why is there no independent music or theatre?Why is the only independent art form film?One of the characteristics of independent film is that it is not associated with the major production com-panies.Paramount cannot make an independent film, nor can the National Film Board.Independent films are made by individuals or groups who raise their own production money outside the financial channels normally used for commercial films.The funds may come from foundations, friends, or just working.A loan might be a possible source, but it would not likely be a bank loan.A bank would be looking for a good risk and collateral, neither of which can be offered by an independent film.Independent films are almost certain financial failures.Money is contributed to independent films rather than invested in them.All of this sounds quite bleak, but the bleakness of their finances is of the central characteristics of independent films.There is no coherent style or aesthetic concern found in all independent films.There is however a concern not to be swallowed up by the major production companies; there is a concern to remain financially and aesthetically independent.The control exercised by the large production companies is one of the central reasons for the existence of independent film as a distinct type of film.The large companies have the money, the equipment, the technicians and effectively control over the theatres where films are shown.It is amazing that independent film exists at all as an identifiable phenomenon.One would think that industrial films would have gained absolute dominance.There are no more independent automobile manufacturers, and independent supermarkets, electrical companies and railroads seem to be fast disappearing.But independent film survives.Actually I think that the dominance of film by the big money companies is one of the reasons for there being something called independent film.If you consider arts such as music and theatre, you will see that powerful financial forces are involved.Even so there have always been active musical groups functioning on a much smaller scale.There are the major orchestras and record companies on the one hand, but there are a multitude of stable choral and chamber groups on the other hand.Similarly there is the Broadway Theatre, but there have always been active regional and local theatres.In music and theatre the major organizations may dominate, but they do not threaten to completely overwhelm.The individual artist can still exist without such great difficulty, and I think this possibility was why nothing equivalent to an independent film movement has existed in music or theatre.It was not necessary.In film the major companies did threaten to completely overwhelm.It was extremely difficult for an individual to make a film and virtually impossible to get a theatrical showing for an independently produced film.It was in response to this situation that a movement referred to an independent film came into existence.The organizations which are associated with independent film make it possible for individuals and groups to have access to equipment, technical help, means of distribution and public screening facilities.Independent film came into existence to prevent the major film companies from succeeding in completely overwhelming the individual artist.IV Avant-Garde Art is somewhat of a misnomer: It is art which will initially be understood by many to be so much in advance of art that it is not art.A few, including those who have bestowed on it the name of avant-garde painting, film or whatever, have had the foresight to recognize it as art.At a later point in time, this Avant-Garde Art will likely become simply art.It will not need the adjective \u201cavant-garde\u201d to remind people that it is a type of art which they may have difficulty recognizing as art.Avant-Garde Film is always a type of Experimental Film and Experimental Film consists of those works which can best be understood and appreciated as being about their own medium.Within experimental film there is a much smaller group of films which can hardly be understood and appreciated at all.Some of these films which are almost beyond our understanding and sensibility are avant-garde films.Interestingly, \u201cavant-garde\u201d appears to be a title which is bestowed on works by someone other than their creator.For an artist to say that \u201cI make experimental films\u201d sounds perfectly all right to me, but \u201cI make avant-garde films\u201d sounds strange.It sounds strange in the way that saying \u201cI make good films\u201d sounds awkward.This awkwardness of claiming to make avant-garde works is consistent with my understanding of how works come to be called \u201cavant-garde\u201d; becoming an avant-garde work requires that someone other than its creator understands and appreciates the work.Another characteristic of avant-garde works is that they are usually produced by persons who are already accepted as artists, but who are producing works which are difficult to appreciate.For example, a young unknown filmmaker producing a radically unusual and difficult work would probably not be thought of as producing an avant-garde work because no one would consider the work seriously enough to bestow the title.The work would be dismissed as simply bad.However if Michael Snow produces a work which no one initially seems to understand, appreciate or like, the work will not be dismissed so cavalierly.The work will exist in a respectable state of aesthetic limbo until our, or at least one critic\u2019s, sensibility or understanding catches up with thework.V At points in this essay I have discussed words and their usage in language as a means towards gaining an understanding of these words.I now want to be precise about my intention in doing this: My aim has been to clarify our understanding of these concepts and one of the ways I have gone about doing this is discussing the relations between language and the world.I chose this method because it happens to be one of the ways in which I think about this kind of problem and because I think it is an effective way of guiding you through a reasoning process.However, I want to be clear that I am not discussing the history of the use of language.If it should be discovered that a specific person first coined the phrase \u201cIndependent Film\u201d and that it was first used on a specific date and that it was used to mean something other than what I have indicated, I say fine.This information would be historically interesting, but it does not affect what I am discussing.I am discussing a clarification of our understanding of the relation between Independent Film, Experimental Film and Avant-Garde Film that can be used now.I am not discussing history.I am not offering definitions.If necessary, I would say that I am proposing a new rational clarification of the three concepts rather than reporting on their past.In summary form, these are some of the relations between the three concepts: Independent Film is a broad grouping based on the economics of film production.It includes both fiction and non-fiction films, experimental films and completely conventional films.In theory, any type of film could be produced as an independent film, so long as it was made by an individual or group working outside the system of film production companies.Experimental Film is a small subcategory of film.It includes those films which are primarily understood and appreciated as being about the film medium itself.Almost always these are also independent films, but there are exceptions.For example Norman McLaren makes non-independent experimental films at the National Film Board.Avant-Garde Film is a small subcategory of experimental Film.It consists of experimental films which go beyond the ability that most of us have to understand and appreciate them, but nevertheless are understood and appreciated by some one other than their creators.Who can convey this status of being avant-garde is an unresolved issue, at least in this essay.Avant-Garde films are virtually always independent films but in theory there could be a non-independent avant-garde film.¦ 17 CLAUDE CHAMBERLAND Entrevue avec Claude Chamber-land réalisée par France Morin et Chantal Pontbriand.PARACHUTE: La Coopérative des cinéastes indépendants de Montréal est née à peu près en même temps que d\u2019autres coopératives, comme celle de New York?CLAUDE CHAMBERLAÜD: Non, celle de New York est née avant, je ne sais pas les dates exactes, vers 1964.On a été, je pense, la première au Canada, ensuite Toronto a suivi de près, en 1967 aussi.La Coopérative, c\u2019est Dimitri Eipides qui l\u2019a façonnée en 1967.Il y avait rassemblé une quinzaine de films.La mise-sur-pied s\u2019est avérée un processus lent.Au début de la Coopérative, il y a eu une première salle de cinéma, le Centre du film underground située au Review Theatre, rue de Maisonneuve, coin Saint-Marc.Là, à toutes les semaines, pendant trois ans, on a montré des films, jusqu\u2019en 1970.Le cinéma comme tel a ouvert en avril 1968 puis, il a fermé à l\u2019été 1970.À toutes les semaines, toutes les fins de semaine, il y avait cinq projections, choisies dans un répertoire de tout ce qui se passait dans la production indépendante, surtout expérimentale, un peu socio-politique, nous avons invité une quarantaine de cinéastes: Adolphe Mekas, les frères Kuchar, Maurice Amar, les gars de la coopérative de Rome, du Japon, les différents groupes qui passaient par New York, nous les invitions à venir présenter leurs films.PAR.: Dimitri était cinéaste, toi aussi?C.C.: Non, moi j\u2019étais dans la musique.J\u2019étais chanteur dans un groupe, Les Soeurs de l\u2019Opéra, un groupe assez anarchique.J\u2019étais toujours dans des combines non commerciales, j\u2019étais vraiment anticommercial.J\u2019ai rencontré dans un party deux Grecs, Dimitri Eipides et Dimitri Spentzos.Spentzos est resté six mois, il venait du cinéma commercial.Il a appris tout du cinéma non commercial à travers Eipides.Eipides, lui, venait de New York directement lors de son arrivée à Montréal en 1967, il a tout appris de Marie Menken à la coopérative de New York.Ensuite il a habité deux ans à San Francisco où il a côtoyé les différents noyaux qui ont débuté l\u2019underground.PAR.: Quand le cinéma a fermé sur la rue de Maisonneuve, comment vous êtes-vous réorientés?C.C.: Cela a été très difficile.Il y avait des semaines où on avait des programmes plus faciles, il y avait plus de monde.Les programmes plus faciles finançaient les plus difficiles, l\u2019expérimentation.PAR.: C\u2019était quoi, un programme facile?C.C.: Par exemple, les frères Kuchar, plus narratifs qui avaient une ligne dramatique, kitsch, comparativement aux expériences structurales, formalistes.Aussi, on était plus couvert par la presse pour les programmes faciles.PAR.: À ce moment-là, quelle était la conjoncture à Montréal pour le cinéma?C.C.: Il n\u2019y avait absolument rien comme film indépendant, il n\u2019y avait rien eu à part quelques projections d\u2019une société de films ou d\u2019un particulier.PAR.: Est-ce que vous aviez l\u2019impression de développer un public?C.C.: On a développé un public.Ce qui a été intéressant avec le Centre du film underground, c\u2019est qu\u2019à cause de la variété de films, on attirait toutes sortes de gens qui étaient ennuyés par le cinéma commercial.Il y a évidemment des gens qui ne revenaient pas à cause des programmations plus difficiles.La place était très ouverte.Finalement, on a été obligé de quitter, à cause du loyer, on avait énormément de dettes.C\u2019est à ce moment que l\u2019on a commencé une collaboration avec les musées, on a commencé à faire des programmes trois, quatre mois par année avec le Musée des beaux-arts.Aussi, presque en même temps, en 1971, on a ouvert le Cinéma parallèle, à l\u2019Association des sculpteurs du Québec, ils avaient une galerie appelée la Galerie Espace.PAR.: Mais vous aviez quand même, entre 1967 et 1971, assuré une programmation continue.C.C.: Entre 1967 et 1970, à toutes les semaines, 52 fins de semaine pendant trois ans, et à partir de 1970 pendant trois, quatre mois, il y a toujours eu des présentations de films indépendants, à toutes les années.PAR.: Est-ce que vous aviez établi un centre de distribution?C.C.; À partir de 1968-69, on a fait un catalogue, avec environ une cinquantaine de films.On a maintenant environ 600 films.Aussi, en 1969 on a fait une tournée en Europe, on a couvert neuf pays en deux mois en visitant les cinémas de coopérative cinémathèques.En 1970, on a fait une autre tournée, beaucoup plus élargie, dans 14 pays.PAR.: Vous ameniez quels films?CC.: Nous avions fait une sélection de films qui nous étaient soumis à travers le Canada.PAR.: Y avait-il des films québécois?C.C.: Il n\u2019y avait pas tellement de films québécois et ils n\u2019étaient pas très bons.On aurait voulu faire une sorte de rétrospective des films québécois, mais ce n\u2019était pas possible.Si on amenait douze films, on avait dix films canadiens et deux films québécois.PAR.: Qui était vos têtes d\u2019affiche?C.C.: Le film indépendant québécois était un peu dans la lignée des films français, des films encore très narratifs, il y avait de très bons films dans cette lignée; au niveau des films strictement expérimentaux, il n\u2019y avait pratiquement rien.PAR.: Dans la lignée des films français, tu veux dire un peu à la Godard?C.C.: Pas exactement, plutôt le cinéma direct, documentaire.Même encore aujourd\u2019hui, il y a peu de films expérimentaux faits au Québec.Il y a Vincent Grenier, tu peux les nommer sur les doigts de la main, les cinéastes expérimentaux.De toute façon, il n\u2019y a pas beaucoup de gens ici, et il y a tout l\u2019héritage de ce que l\u2019on a vécu comme culture cinématographique.Et même aujourd\u2019hui, on ne peut pas dire qu\u2019il y a un cinéma expérimental québécois qui s\u2019est développé au Québec, ou ceux qui travaillent, travaillent ailleurs, PAR.: Est-ce que tu mettrais ça surle compte du manque de tradition dans le cinéma indépendant?C.C.: Il n\u2019y a pas que ça, c\u2019est le manque d\u2019imagination, il n\u2019y a simplement pas eu ces forces créatives qu\u2019on espérait.PAR.: Mais généralement, s\u2019il n\u2019y a pas de modèles, on arrive difficilement à créer une succession, une suite.C.C.: Nous étions là, et différents organismes ont fait d\u2019autres projections de films, il y avait tout de même quelque chose qui se passait, c\u2019est assez difficile de penser que de tout cela rien ne soit sorti.Nous espérons qu\u2019avec une salle permanente Le cinéma parallèle et la vaste programmation que nous proposons nous aiderons à créer un public de plus en plus intéressé au cinéma Indépendant et peut-être aussi de nouveau cinéastes.PAR.: Parce qu\u2019au Canada anglais, c\u2019est différent?C.C.: Là, on ne parle pas de Toronto, Toronto non plus n\u2019a jamais vraiment été rivée sur la question d'expérimentation dans le cinéma.C\u2019est surtout ce qui s\u2019est passé sur la côte ouest, peut-être à cause de la proximité de San Francisco, là il y a eu une multitude de cinéastes.PAR.: Qu\u2019est-ce qui vous a poussé dans vos dix années d\u2019existence à ouvrir un cinéma qui vous appartienne?C.C.: Avoir un cinéma comme celui-ci a toujours été un de nos rêves, avoir nos propres outils de diffusion, de production, de distribution.Il y a beaucoup de cinéastes ici qui veulent que leurs films passent dans les cinémas commerciaux, qui veulent être reconnus dans des festivals internationaux qui normalement passent des films commerciaux, qui se battent pour qu\u2019il y ait une section de films indépendants.Ca donne ce que ça donne.Moi, je n\u2019y crois pas parce que c\u2019est un échappatoire, une goutte dans l\u2019océan.Si tout le monde, dans tous les domaines artistiques, se mettait à s\u2019occuper de diffusion, ouvrait non seulement un endroit mais plusieurs, cela nous permettrait d\u2019avoir nos propres moyens de diffusion parallèles.PAR.: Vous avez toujours assuré une certaine distribution, soit par des présentations dans des théâtres ou par la distribution dans les Cégeps, les universités ou les musées; côté production, quel est votre rôle?C.C.: Ça, c\u2019est une autre paire de manches, c\u2019est la seule chose à laquelle on n\u2019a pas touché encore car cela représente tout un investissement d\u2019argent et d\u2019énergie.Je mesouviens de l\u2019époque où l\u2019Association coopérative des productions visuelles avait soumis un projet qui tombait un peu sous les politiques industrielles du film, semi-industrielles: le script choisi était finançé et l\u2019Association coopérative des productions visuelles maintenaient des droits comme toute maison de production.Moi, ce que je proposais, c\u2019était l\u2019inverse: avoir un atelier de production avec l\u2019équipement sur place et que le cinéaste, premier arrivé, premier servi sans regard au contenu du film \u2014 film de droite, de gauche, expérimental, sexuel, bilingue \u2014 apprenne toutes les phases de la production.PAR.: Avec les moyens que tu as finalement réussi à avoir pour ouvrir le Cinéma parallèle, tu peux proposer quoi?Que comprend le Cinéma parallèle? C.C.: Le Cinéma parallèle comprend la Coopérative qui est le coeur de l\u2019affaire: c\u2019est la Coopérative qui distribue les films des cinéastes à travers les Cégeps, les universités, les musées, etc.On veut avoir une librairie sur tout ce qui concerne le film indépendant, tout ce qui a été écrit, à partir de la naissance du cinéma à aujourd\u2019hui.La Coopérative aura aussi un programme mensuel et de plus la salle pourra être utilisée par d\u2019autres groupes ou individus qui veulent faire de l\u2019animation autour de certaines productions de films.PAR.: Cela, sans aucun critère qui favorise une forme de films plutôt qu\u2019une autre?C.C.: La grande différence entre ici et l\u2019Anthology Film Archives de New York est au niveau de la sélection des films; il y a une grande pluralité, nous programmons des films de différentes tendances.PAR.: Comment faites-vous votre programmation?C.C.: Tous les films qui sont dans le répertoire de la Coopérative seront programmés.J\u2019ai établi ainsi 110 programmes de différentes orientations plus variées qu\u2019avant car à l\u2019époque je n\u2019avais que trois ou quatre mois de programmation, j\u2019étais restreint.Maintenant la salle est permanente, il y a des programmes sept jours par semaine, donc je peux tout présenter, un mélange, un heureux mélange qui doit se faire, c\u2019est une recette intuitive.Il y a un type de production que les gens aiment moins: le film structural.Si on ne présente que Grenier ou Snow, on est assuré de perdre des gens.PAR.: Pour en revenir aux films que vous possédez ou que vous distribuez, vous ne refusez aucun film.Comment expliques-tu, à ce moment-là, que dans un milieu comme Montréal où il y a peu de productions en cinéma indépendant, il y a peu de cinéastes, qu\u2019à part votre Coopérative, il existe, entre autres, une association comme les Films du Crépuscule.Elle fait aussi de la distribution.Ne trouves-tu pas qu\u2019il y a une sorte de dédoublement pour un milieu si restreint?C.C.: Premièrement, les Films du Crépuscule n\u2019existent que depuis un an.Ils se éclament du cinéma \u201cartisanal\u201d, appellation que nous n\u2019utilisons pas, nous avons toujours utilisé cinéma indépendant.Artisanal, on juge ça trop folklorique.Au niveau de l\u2019appellation, en fait on a voulu différencier le produit québécois par un mot : artisanal.Le Crépuscule fait partie du Service d\u2019animation socio-culturelle de l\u2019Université du Québec^maintenant, ils ont décidé de faire de la distribution.En fait, on distribue les mêmes films, mais ils ont seulement des films québécois.Maintenant, ils ont commencé à faire signer des contrats d\u2019exclusivité avec environ quarante salles, une entente selon laquelle on passe seulement des films du Crépuscule, des films artisanaux, des films indépendants.Ce qui n\u2019est pas du tout dans l\u2019esprit d\u2019une coopérative.Ils distribuent également beaucoup de films de l\u2019Association des cinéastes amateurs du Québec.PAR.: N'y a-t-il pas eu une scission à l\u2019intérieur de la Coopérative en 1969-70?C.C.: En 1970 une autre Coopérative s\u2019est formée à Montréal du nom de la Coopérative du film du Québec car les cinéastes ne voulaient que des films québécois dans la Coopérative des cinéastes indépendants.Mais notre Coopérative a toujours été ouverte à toutes les possibilités afin que les gens voient tous les genres de films.Les cinéastes indépendants sont tous placés dans la même situation au niveau de la distribution et de la diffusion de leurs films, c\u2019est une famille internationale, il faut s\u2019en occuper.Certains groupes voulaient que l\u2019on ne s\u2019occupe que de films socio-politiques, d\u2019autres voulaient que les films ne représentent que la réalité québécoise.PAR.: La Coopérative du film du Québec existe-t-elle encore?C.C.: Non, elle n\u2019a existé qu\u2019un mois.La plupart des cinéastes sont revenus à la Coopérative des cinéastes indépendants.Nous avons toujours eu des difficultés avec différents groupes au Québec.PAR.: Vous étiez accusé d\u2019être internationalistes?C.C.: Oui, de présenter des films américains, mais pour nous cela n\u2019avait aucun rapport, on présentait ce qu\u2019il y avait en cinéma indépendant.Il n\u2019y en avait pas au Québec, alors! PAR.: Quelle différence fais-tu, au Québec, entre cinéma amateur, cinéma étudiant, cinéma indépendant, cinéma expérimental, cinéma artisanal?Qu\u2019est-ce que tu entends par cinéma indépendant, toi?C.C.: Ce qui est produit en dehors des circuits commerciaux, tout ce qui maintient des idées progressistes soit au niveau formel, au niveau de l\u2019approche documentaire etc.Là-dedans, il y a beaucoup de films qui n\u2019ont aucune approche nouvelle au niveau de l\u2019expérimentation, mais c\u2019est une chose normale comme c\u2019est normal dans la production commerciale d\u2019avoir de très mauvais films aussi.Dans le film indépendant, il y a peut-être 20% de bons films, le même pourcentage que dans la production commerciale.PAR.: Mais est-ce que tu t\u2019attends quand même à ce qu\u2019il y ait un clivage qui se fasse avec le temps?C.C.: Oui, le temps est un facteur déterminant; il faut que les gens aient la possibilité de voir différentes productions.PAR.: Vous offrez vos films à des Cégeps, à divers niveaux scolaires.Est-ce que le cinéma indépendant arrive à être diffusé vraiment dans les écoles?Est-ce que les écoles profitent de cette offre que vous leur faites?C.C.: C\u2019est un travail continuel.La plupart des Cégeps sont rivés sur le cinéma commercial.On se perd dans un océan.Avant, il y avait certains ciné-clubs auto-financés de peine et de misère par des étudiants, mais maintenant cela fait partie du programme éducatif d\u2019avoir ces ciné-clubs.J\u2019ai fait beaucoup de recherches là-dessus.Il y a des agents distributeurs qui en fait n\u2019ont pas de films.Ils font affaires avec des compagnies comme Columbia et font faire des copies 16mm.de films commerciaux.Les grosses compagnies comme Columbia ne sont pas intéressées à la distribution dans les Cégeps, ça ne rapporte pas autant que les \u201crunning theatres\u201d.Alors, elles laissent ça à ces agents, à ces \u201cmiddle-men\" qui souvent ont été de connivence avec les responsables des ciné-clubs pour la location des films commerciaux.Cela, jusqu\u2019à ce que le scandale éclate.PAR.: Le principe de toute l\u2019affaire finalement, c\u2019est que c\u2019est encore très difficile pour le cinéma indépendant de percer ce réseau-là.C.C.: C\u2019est vrai, et de plus, il faut considérer le fait qu\u2019il n\u2019y a qu\u2019une seule copie de chaque film dans la Coopérative.C\u2019est une réalité ce ne sont pas des films connus et plusieurs sont des courts-métrages.Qui va présenter des séries de courts-métrages?Personne ne le fait.La Cinémathèque ne présente presque pas decinéma indépendant non plus, ou si elle présente une série de courts films ce sera des films d\u2019animation.PAR.: Comment fonctionnez-vous quand vous louez les films des cinéastes: est-ce qu\u2019ils gardent leurs droits et vous leur donnez un pourcentage ou est-ce que vous vous prenez un très petit pourcentage?C.C.: Premièrement, le cinéaste garde tous les droits s\u2019il le veut.C\u2019est fait sur une base de confiance.Par exemple, si un cinéaste veut louer un film pour $20.00, il reçoit 70% de chaque location; dans le cas de ventes à la télévision, il reçoit 80%.De plus, pour ce qui est des ventes à la télévision, on offre au cinéaste de négocier pour lui mais s\u2019il veut négocier lui-même, il peut avoir 100% du montant.Nous avons aussi des politiques envers la Cinémathèque québécoise, on ne lui passe aucun film, parce que la Cinémathèque ne veut pas prévoir de budgets pour la location des films des cinéastes indépendants.C\u2019est inconcevable pour nous.On sait qu\u2019elle a des troubles monétaires, elle devrait tout de même faire un effort pour au moins payer les cinéastes indépendants.PAR.: Elle ne loue aucun film?Quand elle fait venir des films de l\u2019étranger, c\u2019est gratuitement?C.C.: Des ententes entre la F.LA.F.(Fédération Internationale des Archives du Film) leur permettent de se prêter des films.Au niveau du film commercial, il n\u2019y a pas de problèmes, il y a de 300 à 400 copies.Pour le film indépendant, c\u2019est bien difficile.Par contre, nous, avec nos maigres moyens, nous réussissons à payer les cinéastes.Mais si un cinéaste veut absolument présenter son film à la Cinémathèque, bien que comme politique, on ne lui passe aucun film, c\u2019est un non pour un oui; finalement, c\u2019est bien flexible.PAR.: Possédez-vous plus d\u2019une copie de chaque film?C.C.: Il y a certains films dont on a une copie pour la cinémathèque et une pour nos archives.C\u2019est aussi un autre de nos projets en cours, de faire un peu ce que fait Anthology.La différence entre elle et nous, c\u2019est que l\u2019Anthology est très sélective dans le choix de son programme de préservation et de diffusion.Nous on présentera le même type de programmation, mais on présentera aussi une plus grande variété de films.PAR.: Il y a aussi beaucoup d\u2019autres endroits à New York où tu peux réussir à voir du film expérimental.C.C.: Oui, et qui ne s\u2019occupent strictement que de productions contemporaines comme Millenium, Film Forum, Collective For Living Cinema, etc.PAR.: Donc vous gardez une copie pour les archives et une copie pour la diffusion.Mais quelle est votre politique concernant la conservation?Est-ce que vous en avez une?C.Cj: On en a une, mais ce sont les moyens qui nous manquent.On fait ce que l\u2019on peut.PAR.: Comment est réparti le budget que vous avez maintenant?C.C.: C\u2019est bien difficile.On a fait plusieurs choses.On a fait des tournées qui sont maintenant terminées.On va au plus pressant.On n\u2019a pas lechoix.On n\u2019a pas de stabilité budgétaire.Mais, tous comptes faits, en regardant tout ce qu\u2019on a réalisé depuis dix ans, malgré toutes les difficultés, je pense que nous sommes en train d\u2019atteindre la plupart de nos objectifs.Ce n\u2019est pas l\u2019excellence même, mais c\u2019est un travail à long terme et continuel.PAR.: Quand tu dis que c\u2019est difficile d\u2019avoir une politique de stabilité au point de vue financier, comment pensez-vous rencontrer vos frais fixes en étant ouvert sept jours par semaine?C.C.: Avec un tiers de la capacité de la salle assuré, on paie les frais généraux de location, d\u2019électricité, location de films.PAR.: Est-ce que l\u2019aménagement du cinéma a été entièrement subventionné?C.C.: Non.En partie.En fait, on a demandé un budget de $237,000.00 avec une ristourne annuelle de $117,000.00.On demandait $120,000.00 ce qui comprenait la filmothèque, une librairie, avec toute l\u2019excellence des moyens que tu peux avoir, salaires, etc.Cela comprenait de plus le Cinéma parallèle (rénovation, immobilisation) la Coopérative, et ses différents projets de diffusion, de conservation, etc.On a reçu $30,000.00 dont $10,000.00 de l\u2019Institut québécois du cinéma, et $20,000.00 de la Direction générale du cinéma.Il y a eu aussi les Publications Québécor et de l\u2019aide de différents individus.19 PAR.: À l\u2019heure actuelle, est-ce que vous recevez des subventions du gouvernement fédéral?C.C.: Depuis trois ans, on n\u2019a jamais reçu de subventions, malgré le fait que l\u2019on en ait demandées à plusieurs reprises.PAR.: Quels ont été les débuts du Festival international du cinéma en 16 mm de Montréal?C.C.: En 1971, on a commencé ce Festival; financièrement c\u2019est une autre entreprise difficile car on n\u2019a jamais eu l\u2019argent équitable pour le réaliser adéquatement.À Ottawa, le Bureau des festivals, qui nous donnait un peu d\u2019argent, a toujours voulu subventionner un festival commercial comme celui de New York ou celui de Chicago.Ils n\u2019attendaient que cela quand c\u2019est arrivé tout d\u2019un coup en 1977 avec les trois festivals de Montréal que l\u2019on connaît.PAR.: Mais comment votre Festival se situe-t-il par rapport à d\u2019autres festivals?C.C.: Ce n\u2019est pas du tout la même chose.Premièrement, c\u2019est un festival qui s\u2019occupe strictement de la production en 16 mm de nouvelles productions indépendantes, mais aussi nous touchons à la production institutionnelle, comme les films de l\u2019American Film Institute, et la production commerciale aussi (certains films).La plupart des participants sont des cinéastes indépendants.Mais le mélange est bon parce qu\u2019il donne une vue générale de ce qui se passe en 16 mm et les gens se font une idée de ce qui se fait avec ou sans moyens.PAR.: C\u2019est un festival non compétitif?C.C.: C\u2019est un festival non compétitif qui ne décerne pas de prix mais par contre, s\u2019il y a des groupes autonomes qui veulent en décerner, nous n\u2019avons pas d\u2019objections.PAR.: Qu\u2019est-ce que tu entends par groupe \u201cautonome\u201d?C.C.: Une fondation peut donner un certain prix ou bien une compagnie comme Du Maurier.PAR.: Elles pourraient vous aider aussi finalement à financer la manifestation.C.C.: Aussi, oui, mais malheureusement cela ne s\u2019est jamais encore produit sinon des pourboires! PAR.: Votre Festival peut être mis en parallèle avec celui de Knokke et puis quel autre?C.C.: La seule différence, c\u2019est que le nôtre se limite au 16 mm; il n\u2019y en a pas d\u2019autres au monde.Il peut être mis en parallèle avec tout festival qui s\u2019occupe de productions indépendantes ou de films progressistes que ce soit en 35 mm ou en 16 mm.On peut nommer le Festival de Mannheim, de Rotterdam, celui de Berlin, en ce qui concerne la section du jeune cinéma.Il y a le Hamburg Film Festival aussi.PAR.: Pour donner plus de diffusion à votre Festival, ne serait-il pas possible de le greffer à un des festivals plus commerciaux de Montréal?Ou cela vous semblerait-il une antithèse?C.C.: Non, c\u2019est hors de question.Vous voulez dire comme à Cannes, la Quinzaine des réalisateurs?Je crois beaucoup à ce que l\u2019on s\u2019organise pour que ce soit indépendant, pour avoir en main les outils de production, de diffusion, de distribution dans l\u2019espoir de donner naissance à des groupes.C\u2019est une sorte de magie qu\u2019il faut créer.D\u2019ailleurs, ça se passe actuellement au Québec; ça prend du temps.Parce qu\u2019une ville comme Montréal n\u2019est pas tellement un centre nerveux, en tout cas au niveau des arts, on dirait que ça ne regarde personne.On peut seulement se servir de New York comme référence, puis à New York, on sait combien c\u2019est encore plus difficile, d\u2019une certaine façon.Plus difficile dans le sens de l\u2019argent.Mais la grosse différence, c\u2019est qu\u2019à New York, il y a cette magie là.Il y a une espèce d\u2019auto-stimulation, qui passe par tout le monde, tandis qu'ici, c\u2019est le néant.PAR.: Mais un lien physique comme un théâtre peut te permettre de cristalliser un milieu, peut créer une habitude pour un certain nombre de gens et arriver à développer finalement un milieu pour le cinéma indépendant.C.C.: Oui, et j\u2019aurais aimé le faire avant.Parce que c\u2019est vraiment ça.créer un noyau, et aussi le bâtir avec tes mains, avec beauté.PAR.: Pour quelqu\u2019un qui s\u2019occupe de cinéma indépendant depuis dix ans, tu disais que dans le fond, il y avait peu de films intéressants à l\u2019époque et au Québec et qu\u2019il n\u2019y en a pas plus aujourd\u2019hui.Alors comment peux-tu dire que les choses s\u2019améliorent?C.C.: Il y a un déblocage, mais il est encore dans la lignée du film documentaire.Il y a plus de films, il y a des documents intéressants et j\u2019encourage cette tendance.Mais au strict niveau de l\u2019expérimentation, il n\u2019y a rien encore.PAR.: Est-ce que tu as vu ce qui se fait dans les différentes régions québécoises?C.C.: Oui.C\u2019est surtout des films dramatiques, narratifs, puis des films socio-politiques.C\u2019est un des aspects intéressants du Québec, mais, moi, cela m\u2019inquiète beaucoup qu\u2019il n\u2019y ait pas une sorte de production équitable dans le film purement expérimental.Et surtout le fait que ceux qui travaillent dans cette direction sont obligés d\u2019aller travailler ailleurs parce qu\u2019ici, ils n\u2019ont pas de support.PAR.: Qu\u2019est-ce que cela signifie pour toi que Godard vienne donner un atelier de travail ici.C.C.: Si cela correspond à un besoin, j\u2019ose espérer qu\u2019il y aura des suites positives.Mais j\u2019espère qu\u2019il y aura aussi des gars comme Werner Nekes, Brakhage ou Ken Jacobs qui viendront car ce sont des gens comme Ken Jacobs qui apportent vraiment une nouvelle orientation au niveau de l\u2019imagination et qui éliminent toutes idées préconçues au niveau formel et font respirer notre perception visuelle et sensorielle.PAR.: Les sources d\u2019inspiration que tu nommes sont beaucoup plus américaines qu\u2019européennes.C.C.: Werner Nekes est allemand et j\u2019aurais pu nommer aussi d\u2019autres cinéastes comme Klaus Wyborny qui a fait Birth of a Nation, Shuji Terayama, Peter Kubelka, etc.PAR.: Quant tu invites un cinéaste pour qu\u2019il présente ses films, j\u2019imagine que tu essaies d\u2019intéresser tous les milieux universitaires.C.C.: J\u2019essaie d\u2019intéresser les gens à tous les niveaux.S\u2019il y a un workshop, il sera ouvert à tout le monde.Avec les cinéastes que nous avons invités de différents pays, de différents milieux, nous avons toujours eu un public très diversifié.PAR.: Mais, la question que nous posions tout à l\u2019heure par rapport à Godard, c\u2019est que nous trouvons assez significatif que l\u2019événement de l\u2019année à Mont-téal soit la venue de Godard, dans un milieu où justement on privilégie un peu les suites du cinéma direct, du cinéma-vérité, alors que, finalement, Jonas Mekas, qui est aussi venu à Montréal cette année, est venu pour trente personnes! Il est passé complètement inaperçu, et pourtant, dans l\u2019histoire du cinéma expérimental, il est certainement aussi important que Godard peut l\u2019être.C.C.: C\u2019est comme Ken Jacobs.C\u2019est la même chose.C\u2019est comme la présentation des films ici à tous les jours II y aura des représentations absolument extraordinaires, pour vingt personnes.Il n\u2019y aura que vingt personnes pour Jacobs aussi.PAR.: Mais tu parlais tantôt que dans le fond, tu n\u2019as pas beaucoup d\u2019argent pour faire de la publicité.Si tu fais venir Ken Jacobs, de quels moyens vas-tu te servir?C.C.: De nos moyens habituels, (horaires de cinéma, programmes, annonces gratuites à la Radio).J\u2019ai présenté du film indépendant à l\u2019Outremont en 1974.L\u2019Outremont diffuse 100 à 120,000 programmes, et j\u2019ai eu en moyenne 55 personnes par projection.C\u2019est très bien pour le film indépendant mais pour une salle comme l\u2019Outremont, c\u2019est désastreux.Pourtant les gens étaient informés.Au niveau de la publicité, dans le domaine du cinéma indépendant, je crois au contact humain; ça porte beaucoup plus de fruits.PAR.: Alors, le problème, est toujours le même: celui de l\u2019éducation.S\u2019il y avait une éducation qui se faisait au niveau secondaire, collégiale, s\u2019il y avait un intérêt manifesté pour ce genre de cinéma.C.C.: Non, je crois que ce n\u2019est pas une question d\u2019école, rien de ça.C\u2019est une question de créer des lieux, puis de créer une atmosphère.PAR.: Oui, mais il faut au moins que tu saches que ce genre de cinéma indépendant existe.C.C.: Même si les gens étaient informés de l\u2019existence de ce genre de cinéma, tu aurais quand même un petit noyau de gens intéressés.C\u2019est la réalité.Il ne faut pas se faire d\u2019illusions, c\u2019est un travail continu.Avant, il n'y avait même pas de salles.Il n\u2019existe pas d\u2019autres salles comme celle-ci, ouverte sept jours par semaine dans le monde.Cela arrive ici, au Québec.Normalement, une salle ouverte sept jours par semaine devrait se trouver à New York.PAR.: Est-ce que tu crois qu\u2019un travail de création, comme le cinéma indépendant, arrive vraiment à percer?C.C.: Moi, je pense que oui.Tout dépend de comment tu te donnes à ton travail.Plusieurs coopératives ne font rien.Elles sont là, avec leurs catalogues.Nous à priori, on devait être une coopérative de distribution, puis on a canalisé nos efforts pour faire des tournées à travers les Cégeps.En plus, on a toujours fait beaucoup d\u2019autres projets de promotion: le Festival international, des tournées européennes, etc.Ici, il a fallu tout faire.Dans le système de distribution, le catalogue est strictement une source d\u2019information.C'est un mandat beaucoup plus élargi qu\u2019une coopérative ordinaire qu\u2019on se donne finalement.La seule chose qui nous manque, c\u2019est un atelier de production.En ce qui concerne la distribution, elle fonctionne selon l\u2019énergie que tu mets dedans.Elle pourrait être plus élargie encore si on avait des gens sur la route pour contacter différents organismes.C\u2019est difficile parce que tu rencontres des responsables de ciné-clubs, des professeurs de cinéma.et ce n\u2019est pas toujours rose.Le cinéma indépendant va contre toute une machine qui entretient et perpétue l\u2019ignorance et la médiocrité.C\u2019est un leurre de la part de plusieurs cinéastes de vouloir être largement diffusés.En tout cas, je respecte leur point de vue, de vouloir ce genre de diffusion là, mais moi, je crois beaucoup plus à la concentration de ces énergies.Je crois qu\u2019il faut s\u2019organiser avec notre distribution, notre diffusion et notre propre production afin qu\u2019il n\u2019y ait pas seulement un cinéma mais plusieurs, et que cela touche non seulement le cinéma, mais toutes les formes d\u2019art.Cette idée d\u2019avoir nos propres moyens ne veut pas dire en tant que Québécois, mais en tant qu\u2019humains désirant créer et communiquer ce que nous vivons ensemble.¦ 20 JONAS MEKAS an interview by Yana Sterbak The following interview was taped at Optica Gallery, Montreal, on December 12, 1977.YANA STERBAK: In the fifties and the sixties, you spent lot of time and energy in supporting and promoting the independent film.JONAS MEKAS: Yes, certain kinds of film \u2014 those kinds that were neglected.YS: How did you get into it?JM: I don\u2019t know.by necessity.difficult to tell.any attempt to explain how one does something, why one does it.you need more perspective.I\u2019ve tried.I\u2019ve made attempts to understand why i did what I did.One explanation is that after the war, the last war, I found myself in the West, far from the place where I was born and grew up and I was very upset by the political situation \u2014 that is that some of the countries that were independent before the war, because of that war, lost their independence and nobody did anything about it.I wanted to communicate my anger to others but there I was speaking in Lithuanian to Germans, to French, to Americans.They didn\u2019t speak Lithuanian and I didn\u2019t speak any other language to express myself properly.I reason that\u2019s why I gravitated to cinema as an international language, so to speak, as a language I could speak to express my anger and to shout.That\u2019s what my first film is: loud shouting.(What I didn't know at the time was that cinema is also a language and that it was not a question of language but of content; that no matter what language you speak, people won\u2019t hear a certain content or they aren\u2019t interested to listen.) Once I went to cinema to say what I really wanted to say, I had to choose, I had to gravitate to the noncommercial language.to the more condensed forms of cinema and that is the avant-garde film.When I began speaking that language, 99.9 percent of the people did not understand me.It was the same, even worse, that if I\u2019d been speaking Lithuanian.The avant-garde cinema community is still a minority, that language is the minority\u2019s ianguage \u2014 the majority\u2019s language is the Hollywood language, no matter which Hollywood we speak about, Moscow Hollywood, Paris Hollywood or Quebec Hollywood.So I gravitated towards it and discovered that it is as difficult to reach, to communicate what I wanted to communicate, in this language as in any other language.YS: When you came to America, had you any contact with cinema before then?JM: I had some contact in this so-called displaced persons camp, in Germany, after the war, when the army used to show some films.YS: What did they show?JM: Commercial films, whatever they showed to the army, they showed to us but immediately after the war, there were some imaginative, commercial German filmmakers (Liebenheimer, Helmut Koldtner).They had not seen any Rossellini, but they had heard, no doubt, about Open City and the other films that later established Neo-realism.they used the actual location because the studios were destroyed during the war and the films they made had a reality and an authenticity that you cannot create in the studio.There were some films made that were quite inspiring compared to what we saw through the Army channels.when we saw those films, that made me think about the other possibilities of cinema.Then, immediately after the war other films started coming from France; there was Cocteau for example.that was the first contact.But we had to wait because there was no means.we were at the mercy of the United nations refugee organisations.There was no money to buy film or camera.We could not make films, we had to wait till we got to the United States to put it into practice.YS: Film Culture came out only five years after your arrival to the States.Did you start it with P.Adams Sitney?JM: No, P.Adams Sitney appeared six years later from New Heaven, in 1961.I met him for the first time in 1972.YS: So Film Culture was your effort alone?JM: Myself and my brother; then we got some people to help us.If you look at what existed in film publications at that time you would find Sight and Sound, there was casual publication from Edimburg called Cycles, (actually they may have ended by this time) in France, Cahiers du Cinema and in the United States, the University of California published a film quarterly; I am not sure what it was called, but it too closed around that time.So there was only one film journal in the United States, Film in Review, published in New York City by the Board of Education and it was so miserable that we decided to bring out a journal of our own.That's how it started, simply because there was nothing else.You could not read anything.not only was the avant-garde film not covered but the commercial film also was not covered properly.That is why the early years of Film Culture are split between the commercial and the non-commercial cinema; because there was no other choice and no other publication.That went on until 1960-61 until a new film quarterly appeared from California and other publications as well as more coverage by weeklies.So by that time we could devote ourselves exclusively to the independent film.YS: Did you feel it a compromise \u2014 publishing material on the commercial cinema at first?JM: No, we did not feel any compromise because there was not that much activity and talent; there was not that much in the air in the independent film; there was no one writing about it therefore what were we to publish.There was no material and no interest yet.That developed gradually around 1959-60; there was more and more material, films and interest in film making and discussion.The avant-garde cinema community is still a minority, that language is the minority\u2019s language \u2014 the majority\u2019s language is the Hollywood language, no matter which Hollywood we speak about, Moscow Hollywood, Paris Hollywood or Quebec Hollywood.YS: How did you raise the money it took to publish Film Culture?JM: By working eight hours a day, six days a week, in a place called Graphic Studios.My brother worked in various factories in Brooklyn, so there was no problem.YS: You did the graphic design for Film Culture?JM: All of it; I always did it myself and I am still doing it now, except for a few issues which were done by the man who is in charge of Fluxus.It was done this way because we never had any money nor time to explain, so the cheapest simplest way was to do it myself.YS: The New American Cinema Group came to being in 1960.JM: There was already a lot going on, many people were involved.The early movement that started around 1943 in New York and San Francisco with Maya Deren, Sidney Peterson, James Broughton and Willard Maas remained of very limited appeal \u2014 the screenings were attended by small audiences.Around 1955 then we begin to look at what had been made from 1943 to 1955.A lot was done by the members of the early film movement and around 1953-54 Brakhage began to work and new people began to come in like a second grade, Markopoulos, Kenneth Anger.Though their work was seen, they did not establish themselves until a few years later.One of the reasons was that at the same time, around 1968-69, another movement gained force; through the New York School of filmmaking, people like Lionel Robertson and Sidney Meyers did films like On the Bowery, The Quiet One; Helen Livit and James Agee did In the Street and Casavetes did Shadows and then Robert Frank did Pull my Daisy.\u2014 They used documentary style; those who made documentaries or fiction films (Little Fugitive by Morris Anger) shot in actual reality with portable cameras to save money and to gain a certain style.YS: When you mention those characteristics, how close is the relationship to Neo-realism?JM: They were influenced.I have no doubt that Neorealism influenced Morris Anger.Exactly around that time, New York began seeing Neo-realist films.Bicycle Thieves and Open City opened around 1950-55 and no doubt influenced that approach.It went like this: Neo-realism, The New York Film School and then, of course the Cinéma-vérité (1965-68).At that stage, some interesting publicity about the different kinds of filmmaking helped to create more enthusiasm and that's where we come to the New American Film Group.They all got together, all the varieties of filmmakers, the independent of New York and created an organization to do something to strenghten ties between themselves and to look into sponsorship, finances as well as explore screening possibilities.It\u2019s from that organization that the Filmmakers\u2019 Cooperative was created in the summer of 1961.That 21 The early movement that started around 1943 in New York and San Francisco with Maya Deren, Sidney Peterson, James Broughton and Willard Maas remained of very limited appeal \u2014 the screenings were attended by small audiences.added special impetus to the whole movement.YS: Was any of this a reaction to the censorship problem which you mention in the Movie Journal?(1) JM: No, that problem did not exist, not yet.If it existed, it was a minor problem; let\u2019s face it, the work, for the most part, was innocent.Censorship was not the biggest obstacle.The obstacle was that the films were not even considered cinema.They were too short; they exploited strange techniques \u2014; they were not shown, very few people and places were interested in showing them.There was, in the New American Film Group, one little committee that was devoted to censorship but it had nothing to do until around 1964 and a few years later.YS: What about the European independent cinema?JM: It started around 1960.I think maybe it helped some of the people that were working with us then: their dream was to make feature length films of commercial nature but the only thing they could do at that time was to make short semi-narrative films or various little independent projects on low budget.As soon as they had a chance, Casavetes, Bob Downey and a few others jumped to the next stage.YS: Around 1961, you started collaborating with P.Adams Sitney \u2014 did he seek you out?JM: Yes, he came to the Filmmakers Cooperative where I was working at the time.I was planning to send some travelling programmes to Europe(2) then, and I invited him to join us to do that.Fie took films to France, Germany and England.YS: His position was mostly as a critic?JM: Well, he was very passionately interested in film and could talk about it as a critic; he could explain it to strangers, he could defend it and argue with conviction and knowledge.YS: Was he a filmmaker as well?JM: He made a couple of little films at the time but he refuses to show them .His wife didn\u2019t like the way she looked in one of them.it\u2019s a double screen film made in 1964.YS: It was P.Adams Sitney who coined the word \u201cstructural\u201d in describing film?JM: Yes, that comes from his essay in 1967.YS: Was that any type of revelation at the time?JM: No, just summing up for the first time what many people were talking about; it was the first time that the title was used.YS: What were the differences in objectives between The New American Film Group and the Filmmakers Co-op?JM: It was a very mixed group.With the establishment of the Filmmakers\u2019 Co-op, that mixed group began splitting.when I say mixed, I mean people like Markopoulos and Brakhage who were making and intended to make very personal films of limited commercial interest; others like Antonioni who were making political films, documentaries, who wanted to reach the widest possible audiences.When we established the Co-op as an outlet for films, then some of the people gravitated somewhere else.They made films they refused to put into the Co-op because they were afraid it wouldn\u2019t give them enough exposure.(Like Shirly Clark; she finished the Collection and said: \u201cI'm not going to put it into the Co-op because it won\u2019t give me enough outlets, I want to have it in a known commercial agency\u201d).So shewent and Antonioni went and several others went.of course some got burned.years later Shirley Clark came back, Robertson came back.Because on one hand they wanted to reach the widest possible audiences and be successful and on the other hand the work that they were doing was not suitable for that.Those who stuck with the Cooperative were not always those who chose the Co-op willingly and knowingly but rather out of desperation for lack of something else.Nobody else would take them at the time and it proved to be very good for them.That way, the Co-op became established, grew and became an exciting place.so useful that today in New York or the United States, nobody can really say that the Co-op is less important than other distributors.The Co-op went on to prove that the policies established there were sound and they still are even today, 15 or 16 years later.I would really still term them revolutionary.The 5 points on which the Co-op was based remain even today and that is 1) that no film is rejected; in other words: no matter what it is the film will survive on its own merit; if the film is good, it will grow by itself, if the film is not good, nothing can establish it; 2) the Co-op is run by the filmmakers themselves; 3) no film is pushed above the others \u2014 they are all treated equally; 4) no advertising; 5) all income from the rentals goes to the filmmakers except for the percentage assigned by the directors/filmmakers to cover the running costs which in New York is 25%.YS: Is there a screening facility?JM: No, the Cooperative is totally detached from promotion; it is just a distribution centre.(For showing, there are from 10 to 15 places you can go to in New-York.) It has to be so: detached from influence, judgement.and it\u2019s enough work just to handle the servicing and the distribution aspect.For screening, as soon as the Co-op was established, we created something we called the Filmmakers Cinematheque \u2014 it was never confused; the two functions remained separate.YS: So, was the Filmmakers Cinematheque the first sort of sketch for The Anthology Film Archives?JM: Yes, that\u2019s where it started.First it was just called Censorship was not the biggest obstacle.The obstacle was that the films were not even considered cinema.\u201cFilmmakers Showcase\u201d and went until 1963; then it was re-named \u201cFilmmakers Cinematheque\u201d which went until 1970 and then after that \u201cThe Anthology Film Archives\u201d.YS: How did the Anthology start?JM: Late in 1967, we had the opportunity to get two buildings in SoHo under very good conditions.I wanted to make \u201cCinematheque 1\u201d on the ground floor of one of the buildings to be open to any new work to anybody who wanted to screen and \u201cCinematheque 2\u201d which would be like an academy and which would show very selected works for those who have no time to see everything.So plans were made and then we lost one of the buildings, the academy, and got stuck with only the \u201cCinematheque 1\u201d.At that time, Jerome Hill, the filmmaker, came to us and said: \u201cMy friend who has influence on Joe Pab says we could use space in Pab\u2019s building, The Shakespeare Theatre, and we could maybe establish the academy there, but not,\u201d he said, \u201canything that would just show everything, something selective like the academy.\u201d At this point I should interject my policy at the Cinematheque\u201d which was very open.It was not yet right to preselect, the sixties were a very productive period, there was very little as far as guidelines to what was good and what was bad; that was my attitude.So we used to show whatever, whoever wanted to show.Of course, some people did not like that but I would never accept pre-selection in the sixties.It would have been very damaging because when things are just happening, you really should not preselect \u2014 I was right in it and I couldn\u2019t do it so who could.But in 1969, I saw that there was some perspective: the busiest period was practically over.There was already concrete necessity for some pre-selection.The universities started establishing film departments (there were already by 1969, 500 to 600 colleges and universities teaching film \u2014 today there are 900), and people kept coming to me saying: \u201cHere I am starting a film department, far from New York, far from San Francisco, could you advise me on what to show?\u201d I couldn\u2019t cope with all the requests.Instead of presenting every individual with films, there was a need to work out a list of recommendable films from all that\u2019s been done; and that is how we came to the Anthology idea.Since there were accusations that I was using dictatorship, that I was imposing my own taste, I did not feel like making all the selections just by myself.We created a committee of live people with different tastes and backgrounds: James Broughton, Peter Kubelka, P.Adams Sitney, Tellerman and myself and it was always by five votes that we decided what went into the repertory, the Anthology.It was this repertory that began serving universities and colleges.We had to reduce film to practical packages because we got requests such as: \u201cWe have money for only 3 programmes, please tell us who \u2014 the Co-op catalogue lists 500 filmmakers and 2000 films; we can only show 10 filmmakers and 30 films\u201d.If we said nothing, they would show nothing.so we had to do this evil, so to speak, to pre-select in order to help them, so that the movement would spread instead of 22 If nothing were done, the whole history of American avant-garde film would be lost.That\u2019s how we came to preservation about five years ago and to this day we\u2019ve preserved about 150 films.stopping.In Germany and Italy this did not happen, they did not do that and as a result, the film education in universities and colleges died out.(The independent film movement is now completely dead in Italy and Germany \u2014 only one or two people are working now).Whatever we select, there is always a lot of arguing and discussion between us, it\u2019s never final.We consider the Anthology Film Archives repertory collection as a critical tool.That is, we keep polishing as time goes, we keep adding new titles, reviewing; it is very open-ended.If we had decided to make this library, this collection, consist of only the avant-garde films, that would be one thing, but we decided that we should really abandon all the names that have been given to us: experimental, personal, independent, New American cinema, avant-garde, etc.and consider in the first place that we are producing cinema; that we are filmmakers; that we are making films, and films consitute cinema, therefore we are speaking of cinema and this repertory should reflect the best that the five of us consider cinema.If one is coming to cinema for the first time and wants to have some indication fo what has been achieved, the different directions, the different genres, forms \u2014 then this collection should indicate it.That is why we decided to review the whole of cinema, not only the avant-garde film.We consider people like Brackhage to be creating cinema, not experimental avant-garde film.That\u2019s for those who need a label in order to understand.Sometimes I use those terms but under different circumstances, when I need to indicate approximately which area of cinema I\u2019m talking about.Cinema is big, various directions here as in littérature.we know that, say, Whitman is part of littérature and Melville and Thoreau but there we talk of poetry \u2014 same with birds, we don\u2019t talk of birds in general we talk of various kinds of birds.It\u2019s legitimate to label as long as we know we are speaking of cinema.Otherwise, the tendency would be to push the avant-garde filmmaker somewhere else, some strange bird there, anomaly, an exception but not the basis, not the essence.(The essence being Hollywood.) So we try to fight that, that is why the Anthology repertory collection is also manifest of that: We do not separate Brakhage from, say, Renoir.On the other hand, we are against this idea that a film made in 1977 is of course better than a film made in 1967.That is expressed by the order in which films are presented \u2014 we present them alphabetically under the name of the filmmaker.Kenneth Anger starts the cycle and Warhol ends it.YS: It is like a museum, the collection?JM: No, our function IS very museum like, but no matter how people hate the word \u201cacademy\u201d our function as far as the repertory is concerned is more like an academy.the Anthology itself what it does is like a museum but the selectivity aspect refers to academy, like Académie Française.A museum is a non-selective place, a preservation place.That, we do also, the repertory collection is only one function of The Anthology Film Archives.The other functions include Our real material had to do with light, color, movement.a very large collection of reference materials; another function is the preservation.We try to preserve every film in the collection \u2014 that\u2019s where the museum aspect comes in.The preservation aspect in independent film is a new development, we\u2019ve only come to that in the past few years because all the 16mm films lasted only that long.The movement in the United States started in or around 1940.Films could survive in fairly presentable conditions until fairly recently and nobody panicked but now they have all reached a point when they suddenly started crumbling and shrinking.If nothing were done, the whole history of American avant-garde film would be lost.That\u2019s how we came to preservation about five years ago and to this day we\u2019ve preserved about 150 films.YS: That is an expensive undertaking.JM: Very expensive, luckily many of these films of the early period were black and white.Kodak stock, all the new products, have an average life of about ten years.So all the films made in the early sixties are fading and need desparate reparation already.YS: Is the Anthology a distributor as well?JM: No, the Co-op does that.We keep the functions separated very clearly since there are only very few of us, people and institutions dealing with independent film.We try not to duplicate anything that does not need to be duplicated.YS: In all of these efforts, The Filmmakers Co-op, The Anthology Film Archives, Film Culture, you are the prime mover.JM: We know, I know that it\u2019s an illusion that the avant-garde film is now very strong and established, that nothing can happen to it.I know how strong the other forces are, the commerce \u2014 they respect you only as long as you exist in some institutional form.Being a prime mover.that was one of the problems.the filmmakers consider it too much me, so whenever something is established that I helped establish, I try to pull out as much as I can.The Cooperative for instance is going by itself, I\u2019m not needed there, but Film Culture and Anthology, there I\u2019m stuck (laughter).YS: How does the repertory part of Anthology function?JM: The programmes are usually a combination of what is known as repertory and information programmes; this means that we show what has been voted in: the classics of cinema and then the new works, with a ratio of 2: 1.(Even if we did not show any new work, it would not be that tragic, now we have The Millennium, they show every week and have visiting filmmakers; The Collective for Living Cinema, showing every three to four days, Film Forum showing every week and The Museum of Modern Art does at least three or four showings a month and there are others.) Where we\u2019re needed and what we do is this: once a new filmmaker shows a new film at one of those places then usually none of these places wants to bring it back.They all go for one showing and they all want it to be preferably the first one.We avoid the first screenings; we bring back the best of what is shown, which is still very much needed, because otherwise where else can you screen again.The Anthology provides a place for repeated screenings.For example, Yvonne Rainer \u2014 each of her films was shown here or there and that\u2019s it; but at the Anthology, we bring it back every six months.So people can see it again and make up their minds about it: Is it growing?Is it falling to pieces?There are some screenings which we abandon; they really fall to pieces.YS: How do you judge?JM: You see it again and again, then there is a change.A film is not some blank impenetrable thing.We react, compare our reactings with those of a year ago, two years ago; we compare with other peoples\u2019 reactions, with other work we see.Sometimes it happens that a film is attractive not because of the film but because of the personality of the filmmaker.A year later, the person is still there but the film is viewed with different eyes, with more detachment from the person.There are different ways to gain more perspective from the work: first we have to separate it from the filmmaker and that is not always possible at the first screening or from the subject matter which may be very topical at the time.It takes time.We know that some of the films done in the sixties were very successful and since then have faded into the background because they just couldn\u2019t stand the test of time.Maybe they brought some technical innovation which is very exciting at the time but if that was their only merit.Although, no matter how many times we've seen Dogstarman, and it comes from the same period, we can still see it again and again and each time it is still as vibrant as it was then, even better, even fresher.YS: There is still the selection by the five man jury, what is the procedure?JM: Before the selection session begins, (once a year \u2014 they last from two to three weeks) we all contribute our suggestions, what we think should be added or considered.When we get all those films, we look at them once or twice and after each film we simply vote.When we\u2019re just not sure, sometimes we postpone it and wait until the next year.YS: Now talking about your own work; how did the diary format evolve?JM: From desperation, from not having time for longer stretches of time to script a narrative form film based on an idea.I did not have that time because of all my involvements so I shot a little bit whenever I had some time.At first I was not aware of what I was doing.I just wanted to be close to my camera, not to loose touch with it.and then years later when I was looking at the material I had collected that way, I realized that I was making daily notes like a notebook.I began to be 23 Looking at the films of the last ten years you can see that they are all children of Tom, Tom, and Wavelength.more conscious of the form of the diary, I was already doing it more consciously.From 1950, the year of my arrival in the United States until about 1960, I was doing it unconsciously.I have edited the material that begins in 1950, that is another five hours of work.There is a scrupulous process of elimination at some point.YS: You shoot a great deal?JM: Yes, I manage, every week, at least two rolls.YS: You\u2019ve said that cinema belongs to the domain of poetry.* JM: No, I would never have said that: I know littérature and other arts enough to be aware that poetry is a quality, that there is poetic feeling in every art.You can speak of poetry in painting, in life.Dovzenko\u2019s films have great feelings of poetry but the films themselves are not poems they are epic works.and there are some avant-garde films that are almost pure poems \u2014 it does not mean that cinema is poetry.In littérature you can write an essay, a short story, a play, a poem, a journalistic piece, a textbook or advertising, it is the same in cinema.That has been my contention right from the beginning.Cinema is almost like any art; it is as ridden with possibilities and non reducible to Hollywood or certain kind of documentary \u2014 it should be allowed in all its forms.That was where cinema suffered until the fifties.In the fifties and the sixties, it opened and reached for the same variety as littérature.A two-minute film like \u201cBruce Baillie\u2019s\u201d All my Life, which would be the equivalent of a Haiku poem.that did not come to cinema immediately.Y S: In your own films you tend to be lyrical?JM: Yes, maybe I have that weakness but I consider Notes, Sketches and Diaries as an epic narrative because it has a protagonist, me.epic I would put in the first place, lyrical in the second place.YS: In The Movie Journal you have said that certain litterary works approximate films.I\u2019m thinking of Truman Capote and Maysles Brothers, is there anyone you feel kinship with in littérature?JM: Maybe.I very often use exerpts from Thoreau and of course the second title for Notes is Walden, as a tribute, because he means a lot to me.YS: You were interested in poetry long before you started making films?JM: Yes, I\u2019ve read a lot, the classics and the modern.YS: You\u2019ve said in reference to Warhol that one can walk out of his films and come back again.Is that possible with your films?JM: Yes, with a diary film it\u2019s possible to walk out and miss a few days because the footage of one day does not relate directly to the footage of the next day.So if you miss a part of it, it does not matter that much.That\u2019s how some of Warhol\u2019s films are constructed, in any epic film you can miss a part.YS: Was the term \u201cfilm-translation\u201d yours?JM: Tom, Tom the Piper\u2019s Son by Ken Jacobs?YS: Was he the first to do that?JM: Yes, as far as I know, the first and most influential.many people are working in that fashion now.* YS: In The Movie Journal you said in the sixties that the \u201cEstablishment\u201d embraced the independent film, that it became fashionable and there were only three choices left in your eyes\u201d 1) sink into the Establish ment, 2) retreat deeper into the underground or 3) smash through the lines of the establishment to the other side or above it\u201d JM: (Laughter) Before we decided what to do, before we chose any of the three choices the Establishment vomited us out.The Establishment thought that we looked very appealing and very sweet but they discovered that we were like those little creatures with needles.we had those needles all around us and they couldn\u2019t digest us.The theatres that were after our work for two or three years, thinking they could capitalize on us, realised that our essence was not really what they thought it to be: sex and drugs.That was very marginal; we did not have enough such material for them.Our real material had to do with light, color, movement; that was not of such wide appeal, it was not suitable for large theatres and mass public.Same with the press; they soon found out that the source of headlines had run out.As the censorship opened, we weren\u2019t providing them with clashes with the censors, there were no scandals, there was nothing in us for them.So then some of the filmmakers who had great illusions of fast fame and money realized that it was an illusion.some changed direction, but others just proceeded with doing what they were doing and left the rest to the Co-op and the Anthology.We didn\u2019t have to retreat to protect ourselves, we remained where we were.What happened around 1966-67 was that we settled into something I call the \u201cClassical period\u201d.Brakhage was making what he was good at already and was improving; others were doing the same.Very soon after that though some new direction came with Michael Snow's Wavelength and Tom, Tom the Piper\u2019s Son by Ken Jacobs.Those two were of great importance; their influence is much greater than Brakhage\u2019s.Looking at the films of the last ten years you can see that they are all children of Tom, Tom, and Wavelength.YS: Where do you think the new film is going?JM: I don\u2019t know where the new film is going; I know some of the characteristics of some of the younger American avant-garde filmmaking of the seventies: they are all children of Wavelength and Tom, Tom the Piper\u2019s son.YS: What are some of those characteristics?JM: You find a lot of manipulators, explorers of the single frame permutations.That applies to most of the American filmmakers but also to Werner Nekes from Germany.single frame variations, orchestrations by means of optical printers.They don\u2019t even use motion picture cameras, they use still cameras and then work with those images.Or, taking a movie camera but then by means of printers, slowing down of projectors, re-filming, completely restructuring the image (like James Herbert, David Rimmer).The basis is single frame \u2014 maybe it\u2019s Kubelka\u2019s influence, that pointing down.and then from there to various directions: neither Kubelka nor Sharits are being imitated.Diego Cortez alters the film in projection and puts a cinescope lense to distort the images; it\u2019s all part of restructuring, re-organizing the material; the footage is never finished.I could name around thirty people who work this way, between 1969 and now.The other direction would be the plastically interested people (like Barry Gerson); the whole frame plays a part where the image goes through the frame, the way the line of the frame fits on the screen.Not only frame by frame but also considering the screen \u2014 the screen gains importance.And then of course you have the vast legions of artists making films (and I detest them)! (Laughter).¦ FOOTNOTES *1 Jonas Mekas: MOVIE JOURNAL, THE RISE OFTHE NEW AMERICAN CINEMA (1959-1971) The MacMillan Company: New York, N.Y.1972.On censorship: p.234, p.283, pp.329-332.*2 FILM TRAVELLING LIBRARY established by the Film-maers Cinematheque.JONAS MEKAS Born in Lithuania in 1922.After time in a concentration camp and then a displaced persons camp, arrives in America in 1950 and settles in New York.Begins making a film diary from the time of his arrival and maintains this over the years.First public film in 1953 Grand Street a documentary about Brooklyn; followed by the avant-garde feature Guns in the Trees (1960-62) a film of protest.In 1955 becomes publisher for Film Culture.From 1965 begins to film Salvador Dali: Glimpses of Salvador Dali.In 1960 helps to establish The New American Cinema Group.In 1962 establishes the Filmmakers Cooperative.In 1963 assists his brother Adolfas in making the feature Hallelujah the hills and goes on to make The Brig (1964) from Keneth Brown\u2019s play about a penal military camp.In 1966 makes the Milbrook Report \u2014 raid on the headquarters of Timothy Leary, followed by Notes, Sketches and Diaries and his latest film Lost Lost Lost.Establishes the Film Anthology Archives in 1970.24 Visionary Experiments by George Csaba Koller Human beings have always had visions.The more sensitive of them have been able to perceive the world on a visionary plane.Great artists as well as seers throughout the ages have certainly been able to do this.An Indian holy man* , writing over thirty years ago, describes an early visionary experience this way: \u201cAll objects within my panoramic gaze trembled and vibrated like quick motion pictures.My body.the pillared courtyard, the furniture and floor, the trees and sunshine, occasionally became violently agitated, until all melted into a luminescent sea.\u201d Most people who have experienced some form of cosmic consciousness, talk of an all pervading light.Light is the essence of creation.\u201cThe essence of film is light and time,\u201d Michael Snow once told me.So it is not coincidental that one should refer to the analogy of \u201cquick motion pictures\u201d when talking about avisionary experience.Nor is it unusual to refer to visions when writing about film.It is only a matter of time before science discovers a way to attach an electrode to your brain which will pick up all your dreams, for instance, and design a recording device which will play them back to you in living colour the next morning.Until then, in order to view man\u2019s subconscious, we\u2019ll just have to rely on our film and video artists to interpret their own visions for us on celluloid or magnetic tape.I\u2019ve spent the past year travelling from B.C.to Cape Breton, doing research on experimental filmmakers in Canada, with a possible book in mind.Eighty-five interviews and hundreds of hours of films later, I have come to the conclusion that film as art is alive and well in Canada, despite the big push for a commercial film industry in recent years.Next to Toronto, Vancouver yielded the greatest number of experimental filmmakers, most notably David Rimmer, Al Sens, Byron Black, Tom Braidwood, Ken Wallance, Rick Patton, Bix Milanich, Kalle Lasn, and the most prolific of them all, Al Razutis./*Paramahansa Yogananda, Autobiography of a Yogi, p.167.Al Razutis is perhaps Canada\u2019s most intriguing film artist.He refuses to talk about his background, saying only that he comes from Lithuanian-American stock and that he moved up to Vancouver in 1968.His formal education was in physics, math and chemistry, and he began making films in San Francisco in the late sixties.After moving to B.C., he supported himself by running an underground cinema with his wife.It was a place called the Intermedia Co-op, set up to distribute and exhibit the works of the experimental filmmakers working on the West Coast at the time: David Rimmer, Keith Roadan, Gary Lee Nova and Razutis.Until recently, Razutis lived and worked in a small studio under a Vancouver Bridge.He called the place Visual Alchemy, which is also the title of one of his films, and used it not only for experimental film work, but holography, video and sound experi ments as well.Its main features included a home-made optical printer, a home-made laser projector, a video synthesizer and a Moog synthesizer.When the building was torn down, Razutis decided to terminate this chapter in his life.He decided to leave everything behind and move to an island in the South Pacific.His last communiqué was a post card from Pago Pago.Luckily, I still caught him in his studio for an interview and spent a very pleasant Saturday night with this elusive artist, drinking vodka and orange juice and tripping on some excellent magic mushrooms.Running his fingers through his short cropped blonde hair and pushing his shades back up the bridge of his nose, Razutis explained the creative chemistry that gives birth to his films: \u201cBasically I'm a writer and a painter, before being a filmmaker.Literature and filmmaking inhabit opposite ends of the brain.If you connect them into a common language, there usually ensues a very strange struggle.This means that images have to be materialized in a certain kind of light, to go beyond just the immediate effect of the image.The metaphoric content of the image has to be brought out.So you begin to try to discover ways of articulating the metaphoric process as being a singular phenomenon.In other words, a dynamic process would be the same as a dynamic metaphor.Consequently, the image making process became a great concern of mine.That development, which was embodied in a machine called the optical printer, resulted in the kind of film language used in my films like The Moon at Evernight.When you become aware of the effects of an image, then you\u2019re much more sensitive to the way that image can manipulate emotions.\u201d \u201cIn The Moon at Evernight there are a lot of horrendous actions going on that had been abstracted to the point that they\u2019re only suggestions of the action, and they're not even overt suggestions.There\u2019s a throat cutting sequence, for instance.When I read a book about subliminal advertising, Subliminal Seduction, I realized that some of the techniques it was talking about seemed to be analogous to the process I had been exploring as an art form, rather than an advertising technique.Aaeon has a lot of the same technique, probably less premeditated.It has numerous image overlays, things that are intended to slip in and slip out.The metaphors were allowed to develop as freely, as directly as possible.\u201d Razutis is a wizard on the optical printer, and he also has a thorough knowledge of film chemistry, enabling him to create vividly colourful visuals by the manipulation of film printing stocks.Utilizing images from his extensive stock footage library, he patiently rephotographs them frame by frame, to create marvelous superimpositions and often abstract, dancing shapes and colours.He often uses video synthesized images as well, most successfully in 98.3 KHz: Bridge at Electrical Storm and Runway Queen, both from the Amerika series.This includes thirteen of his most recent films, which may be screened as a two hour package or individually.O Kanada! is a six minute rendition of our national anthem juxtaposed with scenes of violence in Quebec.Cities of Eden depicts the great metropolises that grew out of the industrial revolution, seen in Razutis\u2019 vision as optically doctored and coloured documentary footage from the turn of the century.Runway Queen shows a series of strippers bumping and grinding in synthetic video colour, to the point of pleasant abstraction.Bridge at Electrical Storm, his most popular film, was originally shot on super 8mm in San Francisco, crossing the Bay bridge over and over again.He later decided to blow it up, add video images and optical printing, but keeping the cyclical repetition of the image intact.The sound track is a static filled \u201cBest of Fifty Years of Radio\u201d record, featuring subliminally such voices as F.D.R., Hitler, and Kukla, Fran, and Ollie.Razutis describes some of his work in occult terms, referring to the Arcanums of the Initiative Tarot, and using poetic phrases such as \u201cspherical alchemy of creation,\u201d \u201cregeneration by polarity,\u201d and \u201crainbow aural sky waterfalls of fyre & flow.\u201d Aaeon is his personal favourite of this genre, a definitive statement in a filmic langugage developed during long hours on the optical printer.His visual essays on the origin of film feature basic images by the masters Melies and Lumiere, doctored by Razutis in loving homage.His attempt to capture the holographic process on film, Visual Alchemy, is less successful.His total output, however, of twenty five films is so impressive, that we can only hope that this great visual artist will some day return from his island paradise and pick up where he left off.My next area of research was Ontario, where I discovered the increasingly popular Michael Snow school of filmmaking.Michael does not have to be introduced to the readers of this magazine, but perhaps some of the students in his unofficial \u201cschool\u201d ought to be.Snow has been lauded by critics for founding a totally new film language, which is post-Warhol, post-Minimalist.Well, if that\u2019s the case, then he is certainly getting some answers in his new language to his cinematically posed questions.His most gifted \u201cpupils\u201d are Keith Lock and Jim Anderson, who started making 8mm movies together in high school and continued in 16mm throughout their years at York University.Base Tranquility won the best animation prize at the 1970 Amateur Film Festival, and it was scratched directly on to film, including the soundtrack.It\u2019s a very imaginative rocket story, embracing all of man\u2019s technological achievements, including the landing on the moon.Touched is a very sensitively done documentary about children, using some cameraless animation techniques as well.Arnold and Work, Bike, and Eat are experiments in the dramatic genre, utilizing a certain amount of \u201cunderground\u201d camerawork.Jim Anderson made some films on his own as well, 25 Bridge et Electrical Storm by Al Razutis, 1966-73. and is continuing to do so now that the creative pair have split.Scream of a Butterfly is another award winning cameraless animation film, Yonge Street and Royal Ontario Museum capture these two Toronto landmarks in a dizzying barrage of images, Ontario Land and Sun Movie are painted and scratched \u201cexperiments with colour, time intervals and sound.\u201d But his magnum opus is a 90 minute three-reeler entitled Gravity is Not Sad, But Glad.Gravity is one of the most imaginative films ever made.It seems to be an homage to Snow\u2019s Rameau\u2019s Nephew.film, not only because of its length, but also for its seemingly unrelated sequences which add up to a complete whole at the end.The flip book sequence is sure to become a classic: Anderson utilizes every imaginable material to paste onto the pages of his flip books, including lighted candles and party favours.The \u201cyes,\u201d \u201cno\u201d sequence was shot in the basement of the Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre and features a string of celebrated film people, including this writer.Since some of us are in Rameau\u2019s Nephew as well, there is a further connection.The sequence with Jim reading random sentences out of a chain of books in his library, is brilliant.As is the media overload sequence, and the final \u201cgravity\u201d scene, where the earth\u2019s magnetic pull is thrown to the winds and our couple start uncontrollably whirling according to the cyclical nature of things.Keith Lock\u2019s major work so far is Everything Everywhere Again Alive, a more than an hour long loving look at a rural Ontario commune.Keith\u2019s background is Chinese, and the oriental philosophy contained in this film is ample enough proof that he hasn\u2019t lost touch with his roots.Crisp, simple images capture the tools needed to build a barn: an axe, a saw, a hammer.Frame lines around certain scenes indicate precision, exactness.Subjective camerawork of barn being built, maple trees being sapped, or a communal swim, gently emphasizes the elements of this alternate lifestyle, which is in harmony with nature, but is considered revolutionary by the society which produced these young people.An extremely calm yet quietly assertive Lock recalls the circumstances: \u201cI actually took three years to make that film.I moved up north to the farm commune.It took about eighteen months to build the barn, the same length of time to cut the film.I wasn\u2019t in a rush to finish it.I worded on it all the time, but I had no deadline to meet.Because I knew I could live on the farm and not have to worry about money or anything.I had already paid for the stock and the workprint and I had a Canada Council grant to finish it.\u201d \u201cThe film is about human construction, human nourishment, and natural processes.It requires common sense and mysterious uncommon sense at the same time.When the film was being put together, I must have screened the material, which was basically documentary in nature, hundreds of times trying to decide what to do with it.I noticed that whenever certain parts came up, I \u201cheard\u201d sounds from the picture in what was probably some kind of sensory crossover.These sounds were duplicated as nearly as possible with a sound synthesizer and then added to the picture in the places they belonged.Initially, shot followed shot followed shot, but I didn\u2019t want this to happen, because I didn\u2019t want to be tied to presenting reality in the documentary sense and also because the shots themselves did not follow each other continuously as they were being exposed.\u201d Other Ontario film artists working in the Snow vein include his wife Joyce Wieland, Raphael Bendahan, Frieder Hochheim, and to a certain extent Rick Han-cox and Lome Marin.Hancox\u2019 House Movie and Marin\u2019s Rhapsody on a Theme from a House Movie betray a further connection with each other\u2019s work, while Hochheim\u2019s Plurality of Vibratory Circumstances is a dadaist dialogue between the filmmaker and himself.Bendahan\u2019s latest Kitchen Sink certainly emulates Snow in concept, and whereas La Région Centrale is a three hour cyclical landscape, Wieland\u2019s Reason Over Passion is an 80 minute horizontal or linear one, although it actually predates her husband\u2019s film.The last leg of my journey turned out to be the most adventuresome.After spending a fair amount of time in Montreal interviewing both independent filmmakers and those at the Film Board, I headedEast with a friend in a Toyota.Drove through magnificent old Quebec City, where Mario Bolduc attempted to explain why québécois filmmakers aren\u2019t interested in the experimental genre.Picked up a hitch-hiking young lady from the south of France, and drove through torrential rainfall to St.John, New Brunswick, where we were welcomed by Richard Davis, who had made a magnificent four minute film about a swan in a pond, called Watercolor.He shot it in Super 8mm back in Toronto, then blew it up frame by frame, adding filters to create layer upon layer of rainbow coloured images.After visiting some friends near Amherst, Nova Scotia, we drove on to magnificient Cape Breton.There, in the small village of Mabou, live Robert Frank, Walter and Ellis Delorey, and Neal Livingston.Four experimental film artists in such a small place! Frank moved to Cape Breton in the early seventies for solitude and isolation.He is an internationally known still photographer.Equally known are his \u201cunderground\u201d films, such as Pull My Daisy made in 1959, featuring Allen Ginsberg, Gregory Corso, et al., with Jack Kerouac reading his own narration.It\u2019s a typical or I should say atypical beatnik film complete with be-bop jazz and poetry.More recently, Frank did the photography on a Rolling Stones album cover, and subsequently he was asked by them to film their North American tour.The resulting Cocksucker Blues is so explicit in its depiction of backstage antics such as balling groupies and shooting heroin, that the Stones sued Frank in court barring the film\u2019s release.A sheriff even visited Frank\u2019s Mabou home trying to seize his personal copy of the film, but luckily he didn\u2019t.Now the Stones have settled out of court, and Frank is able once again to show the film on the art gallery circuit, provided the provincial censor boards allow it.Frank also shot an experimental drama on an island off the coast of Cape Breton.The screenplay was coauthored with Rudi Wurlitzer, and features local idioms mouthed by an experimental theatre group from New York.The fantastic local scenery is made to look bleak in black and white and the film is somewhat of a puzzle.Now Wurlitzer and Frank are again working on a script, this time a western, to be shot this summer in British Columbia.Frank says he is too overwhelmed by the magnificence of the scenery near Mabou, where foiling hills touch lovely beaches.He cannot shoot another film there, it is enough to live and be a part of it all.Down the road a few miles Walter and Ellis Delorey decided to build an unusual house, after moving to Nova Scotia from Toronto two years ago.It is a circular wooden structure with a geodesic dome on top, which will house a studio.Walter and Ellis started working on films together after meeting at Ryerson in Toronto.They went up to the Yukon several summers in a row, being dropped off by helicopter each time to shoot nature footage in the wilderness.Great Rain Mountain, Cold August Wind, Deep Blue Sleep, and Green Feathered Sea are some of the films that resulted from these trips, mostly artistically composed shots of flora and fauna, cut to synthesized music.When not putting the finishing touches on the house, chopping wood, or tending the garden, Walter and Ellis are hard at work on Silver, a nature fantasy inspired by a dream and Walter\u2019s fascination with comic book heroes.Walter roams the woods with his Bolex picking up shots of deer, rabbits, ants and caterpillars, while Ellis makes beautifully elaborate costumes for the half man, half naimal characters in the film.The bear costume is especially powerful: it is made of blue fur with a real bear\u2019s head painted blue.Walter plays all the characters while Ellis films him.The bear meets death (symbolic of the leg \u2014 hold trap) and must go through the sub-atomic world and be saved by the Silver Shaman, who lives in a bubble.The fox, the moose, the dragonfly, and all the other animal characters help the bear in his plight.An ambitious project, and one worth waiting for, to be sure.Neal Livingston went to school in Toronto and made Aura-Gone while still a student.It is one long continuous shot of a car pulling up to Mount Sinai hospital and then the glass doors of the hospital are shown at length, with people going in and out and the reflections on the glass moving around.\u201cReminisc ent of being left in a car waiting as a child,\u201d commented Natalie Edwards in Cinema Canada.'His less than successful One Side,, Left Corner is about a Halifax couple who have communication problems.Neal is abandoning the experimental and concentrating on the documentary end of things these days.His Interim Sketches of a Year of Austerity is about young, unemployed Nova Scotians, while his new film is about the insecticide spraying controversy on Cape Breton.It is not unusual seeing young filmmakers like Neal Livingston sitting at a Steebeck in the Film Board\u2019s Halifax offices.It seems that the regional production offices of the Board are more than eager to help film co-operatives in their area with free stock and processing, camera equipment and editing facilities.Even in Montreal, young filmmakers are sometimes helped by the Board.Only in Toronto is the Board unresponsive to the needs of filmmakers just starting out.The Halifax Film Co-op was founded by Chuck Lapp and others after he returned from his experiences with the Toronto Filmmakers Co-op.While the latter has gone commercial and is at present in deep financial trouble, the former has managed to become what every co-op should be: a loosely structured production group, where people work on each other\u2019s films and generally help each other out in a communally productive spirit.The ownership of the films is split with the co-op according to a formula.Lionel Simmons has produced Masterpiece about a sterile, futuristic society, where everything is painted white, with black numbers on the wall differentiating the various cells.There is no place for humour or art in such surroundings, but our protagonist cannot stop laughing or painting, for that matter, until he escapes through a window he paints on the wall.The special effects are beautifully done.Chuck Lapp has gone on to direct an ambitious, big budget half hour drama for the National Film Board, but others are still carrying on producing shorts in the co-op tradition, with a lot of help from the Board.But where are today's experimenters in the organization that gave us Norman McLaren and Arthur Lipsett?Mostly in the animation department, with Caroline Leaf, Ishu Patel, Ryan Larkin and Jacques Drouin producing excellent experimental animation on a regular basis.Visions?Drouin\u2019s Mindscape is an outstanding example of pin screen animation depicting inner states of mind, while Ryan Larkin\u2019s Street Musique is an excellent use of colour pixilation and drawing/painting to stimulate the imagination.Ishu Patel manages to capture the power of nuclear energy using thousands of beads, and Caroline Leaf\u2019s sand animation certainly captures form and movement in a unique vision.It is up to us to see and applaud these films which enrich our collective consciousness with moments of aesthetic enjoyment and some deep insights into the human condition.¦ Note: most of the independently made films are available for sale or rental from the Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre, 406 Jarvis St.Toronto.The NFB films are of course obtainable through the Board.George Csaba Koller is a university trained filmmaker, who was editor/publisher of Cinema Canada magazine for three years.He spent the past year researching a book on experimental filmmakers in Canada.26 LE CINÉMA EXPÉRIMENTAL \u20141978: New York/Montréal par John W.Locke Le texte original suit la traduction française.J\u2019ai récemment passé plusieurs jours à New York pour visionner des films expérimentaux réalisés par des jeunes cinéastes qui luttaient pour se faire une réputation.Il faut se rappeler que même si le nombre de cinéastes du cinéma expérimental à New York est minuscule comparé au nombre d\u2019artistes qui travaillent dans d\u2019autres média, il y a un groupe représentant l\u2019ordre établi du cinéma expérimental: ces cinéastes étaient les Exclus.Je suis revenu de mon séjour saturé de films, heureux des espérances qu'ils donnaient et songeur quant à la raison pour laquelle je devais aller à New York pour les voir.Pourquoi n\u2019y a-t-il pas un groupe représentant l\u2019ordre établi du cinéma expérimental à Montréal avec des jeunes cinéastes qui ne sont pas de la partie luttant pour se faire accepter?Il y a certainement un groupe représentant l\u2019ordre établi de la peinture.Où sont les cinéastes?Afin d\u2019aborder ces questions, je ferai quelques observations d\u2019ordre général sur les cinéastes Newyorkais et leurs films.Il est évident que ces observations représentent mon impression globale et ne s\u2019appliquent pas uniformément à tous les cinéastes ou leurs films.Elles sont toutefois fondamentalement exactes et je crois maintenant que cette vue d\u2019ensemble du groupe Newyorkais est instructive quant à la situation à Montréal.NEW YORK Les cinéastes sont souvent gênés lorsque l\u2019on parle d\u2019eux comme des artistes.Les cinéastes commerciaux surtout ne se voient pas comme des artistes.Ceux qui font du documentaire parlent de leur travail comme s\u2019ils étaient des journalistes plutôt que des artistes des arts visuels et les cinéastes qui font des films de fiction semblent avoir plus en commun avec les romanciers à succès qu\u2019avec les artistes des arts visuels.Les cinéastes Newyorkais que j\u2019ai rencontrés n\u2019éprouvaient aucune hésitation: ils se voyaient comme des artistes des arts visuels.Il n\u2019était pas nécessaire d\u2019aborder avec eux ce sujet, tout comme il ne le serait pas nécessaire avec un peintre.Ces cinéastes se situaient sans ambiguïté dans le monde de l\u2019art.Ils étaient des artistes et des cinéastes et non des cinéastes qui avaient trébuché de façon maladroite sur le mot \u201cartiste\u201d.Leur milieu était So Ho et non le centre de production du cinéma commercial situé à l\u2019ouest des avenues 50 de New York.Ces cinéastes ont aussi pris position en ce qui concerne les films des cinéastes du cinéma expérimental qui les précédèrent.Comme d\u2019autres jeunes artistes des arts visuels, ils semblaient plus préoccupés par leurs prédécesseurs immédiats et leurs contemporains qu\u2019orientés explicitement vers la tradition historique de leur médium.Ils connaissent mieux Hollis Frampton que Maya Deren et Deren mieux que Hans Richter ou Oskar Fischinger.Ils semblent toutefois réaliser qu\u2019ils font partie d\u2019un mouvement du cinéma expérimental qui tient une place dans l\u2019histoire du cinéma.Cette notion de faire partie d\u2019une tradition historique ne s'est pas manifestée dans leurs conversations comme une surestimation de leur propre importance mais plutôt comme la manifestation du courage de continuer leur travail.Une autre caractéristique frappante chez ces cinéastes est le fait qu\u2019aucun d\u2019entre eux ne gagne sa vie de ses films pour ne pas dire plus.En fait,aucun de ces cinéastes ne reçoit plus qu\u2019un montant insignifiant pour la vente ou la location de ses films.Ils peuvent à l\u2019occasion se voir octroyer une bourse mais ils vivent essentiellement d\u2019autre chose que du cinéma.Ils ne s\u2019attendent pas non plus à jamais vivre de leurs films dans le futur.Les jeunes peintres newyorkais peuvent aspirer à la réussite et aux rémunérations en espèces qui l\u2019accompagnent.Les jeunes cinéastes du cinéma expérimental peuvent rêver de réussite mais ils savent qu\u2019ils seront toujours pauvres à moins qu\u2019ils ne décident d\u2019enseigner ou de monter un spectacle ambulant pour montrer leurs films et en discuter.D\u2019après moi, cela signifie qu\u2019il faut plus de courage pour être un cinéaste du cinéma expérimental à New York que pour être un peintre à New York.Cela exige un engagement constant à l\u2019art.Même si ces cinéastes ne s\u2019attendaient pas à être directement rémunérés pour leur travail, ils s\u2019attendaient à ce que leurs films soient montrés.Il existe plusieurs endroits à New York où on montre les oeuvres du cinéma expérimental: The Collective for Living Cinema, Film Forum, Millennium, Anthology Film Archives, The Whitney Museum, The Museum of Modern Art.Plusieurs de ces organisations mettent l\u2019accent sur les travaux des jeunes cinéastes du cinéma expérimental alors que d\u2019autres ont plutôt une orientation dans le sens du documentaire social ou une orientation historique; ils présentent cependant tous, à l\u2019occasion, des films expérimentaux.Une des principales préoccupations des cinéastes que j\u2019ai rencontrés était la difficulté de faire visionner leurs films.Ceci faisait partie de leur lutte contre le groupe représentant l\u2019ordre établi ou, si vous voulez, leur lutte pour y entrer.Il existe néanmoins des salles de cinéma à New York où ces cinéastes peuvent aspirer à faire visionner leurs films et lorsqu\u2019ils y parviendront, il y aura un public.Leur lutte leur est pénible mais elle a un but et c\u2019est une lutte réaliste.Ils obtiendront leurs visionnements.Ce serait vous induire en erreur que de suggérer que ces jeunes expérimentateurs forment un groupe organisé.Ce n\u2019est pas le cas.Ils ont cependant plus en commun qu\u2019ils ne le réalisent.Ils sont après tout unis par le fait d\u2019être les Exclus.Ils font plus spécifiquement partie du public du cinéma expérimental et parce qu\u2019ils sont témoins des développements en cours, ils peuvent réagir à ceux-ci.Ils ont un bon sentiment de ce qui se passe couramment dans le cinéma expérimental.Cette connaissance de l\u2019oeuvre de leurs contemporains est un aspect important du développement d'un art ayant une tradition historique comme le cinéma expérimental.Je ne serais pas particulièrement impressionné par un jeune cinéaste solitaire qui aurait décidé de fuir dans un lieu sauvage en 1967 après avoir vu Wavelength de Michael Snow et en sortirait en 1977 avec le résultat de dix ans de réflexion et de travail sous la forme d\u2019un film de trois heures nous montant une vue panoramique d\u2019un paysage sauvage, ne réalisant pas que Snow avait terminé La région centrale en 1971.Les artistes doivent se tenir au courant du travail de leurs contemporains.L\u2019acte indivi duel de réaliser un film est peut être l\u2019oeuvre d\u2019une seule personne dans certains cas, mais chaque film expérimental sera comparé aux autres films.Le travail devrait tenir com- pte du milieu ne serait-ce que pour le rejeter.Même Stan Brakhage descend des montagnes occasionnellement pour voir ce qui se passe.On retrouve un autre lien entre ces cinéastes dans le type de film qu\u2019ils désirent réaliser dans le futur.Au cours de nos discussions, ils n\u2019ont jamais laissé entendre qu\u2019ils désiraient faire un documentaire conventionnel ou un film narratif.Ils ne font pas du cinéma expérimental temporairement en attendant l\u2019opportunité de faire un documentaire ou un long métrage.Ce sont des cinéastes du cinéma expérimental engagés et ils n\u2019ont pas l\u2019ambition de faire des films industriels.Les caractéristiques techniques de leurs films constituent le lien final entre ces cinéastes.À peu d\u2019exception près, leurs films sont muets, en 16 mm.et ont 18 images par seconde.L\u2019usage du 16 mm.est maintenant très courant et cela ne fait qu\u2019empêcher les salles de cinéma commerciales conçues pour le 35 mm., de les présenter.Leur décision d\u2019utiliser la vitesse de 18 images par seconde ne détermine toutefois pas qui verra leurs films.Par exemple, la plupart des projecteurs 16 mm.au Xénon ou à arc installés en permanence fonctionnent uniquement à 24 images par seconde.Les fabricants présument que tous les films en 16 mm.sont munis d\u2019une trame sonore et qu\u2019ils doivent être montréa à une vitesse sonore de 24 images par seconde.Cette présomption signifie que ces films expérimentaux de 18 images par seconde ne peuvent être montrés dans les salles de projection les mieux équipées parce que les meilleurs projecteurs ne fonctionnent généralement qu\u2019à 24 images par seconde.Les membres de ce groupe de cinéastes du cinéma expérimental sont arrivés à la décision d\u2019utiliser la vitesse de 18 images par seconde indépendamment pour un certain nombre de raisons: C\u2019était moins dispendieux car on utilise une quantité moindre de film vierge pour arriver à un film achevé de même durée.Ils ont choisi de réaliser des films muets par souci d\u2019esthétique et en conséquence, la raison habituelle pour tourner à la vitesse sonore courante (24 images par seconde) n\u2019était pas pertinente.Il était entendu que les salles de visionnement ouvertes aux jeunes cinéastes du cinéma expérimental auraient probablement des projecteurs portatifs qui fonctionnent à 18 images par seconde ainsi qu\u2019à 24 images par seconde.Après ma rencontre avec ces jeunes cinéastes Newyorkais, je suis revenu à Montréal très encouragé par la situation du cinéma expérimental.Les membres de ce groupe ont beaucoup en commun en tant que cinéastes du cinéma expérimental mais j\u2019hésite à dire qu\u2019ils forment un mouvement stylistique.J\u2019hésiterais aussi à me prononcer sur la nécessité ou la désirabilité des mouvements stylistiques; ceci n\u2019est donc pas un problème.Ce qui m\u2019intéresse surtout chez ces cinéastes, en dehors de leurs films bien entendu, c\u2019est le simple fait qu\u2019ils existent: leur existence implique que la tradition du cinéma expérimental se perpétue.MONTRÉAL Je me suis posé une sérieuse question au moment où de retour à Montréal, je me suis mis à réfléchir sur l\u2019expérience newyorkaise: pourquoi ai-je dû aller à 27 New York pour voir du cinéma expérimental?La première partie de cette réponse est évidente: la pénurie de cinéastes du cinéma expérimental à Montréal.Cette réponse nous mène cependant à un autre \u201cpourquoi?\u201d.Pourquoi y a-t-il un manque de cinéastes du cinéma expérimental à Montréal?Il me semblerait excessif de prétendre pouvoir fournir une réponse simple à cette question mais je crois que nous pouvons comprendre la lacune dans le cinéma expérimental montréalais en examinant les contrastes entre le milieu des jeunes cinéastes du cinéma expérimental dont je parlais et le milieu montréalais.Montréal est un véritable centre du cinéma.De grandes productions internationales sont tournées ici; l\u2019Office national du film est située ici; il y a un centre actif de films d\u2019exploitation; et il y a eu un mouvement prolifique de films de fiction au Québec.L\u2019industrie du cinéma est très active et c\u2019est très bien ainsi.L\u2019activité de l\u2019industrie du cinéma ne semble malheureusement avoir aucun effet positif en ce qui concerne la situation du cinéma expérimental.Les professionnels de l\u2019industrie du cinéma dominent le milieu du cinéma à Montréal et ces professionnels sont précisément ces gens qui ne savent que faire du mot \u201cart\u201d.Ils sont peut-être en fait des artistes mais le mot les gênent.Ils sont après tout dans les affaires, dans l\u2019industrie.Je spécule, et je ne peux guère faire plus, sur le fait que la domination de l\u2019industrie dans le milieu du cinéma pourrait bien être un facteur dans l\u2019absence de communauté active de cinéma expérimental à Montréal.La distance psychologique entre So Ho et le centre du cinéma newyorkais situé dans les avenues 50, à l\u2019ouest, est beaucoup plus considérable que la distance entre la pensée de quelque cinéaste montréalais et l\u2019Office national du film.C\u2019est comme si Montréal n\u2019était pas assez grand pour permettre aux cinéastes du cinéma expérimental de se soustraire à l\u2019influence de l\u2019industrie: il se trouve toujours un ami qui a besoin d\u2019aide pour un grand tournage ou bien il y a toujours la possibilité d\u2019obtenir l\u2019appui de l\u2019O.N.F.pour un petit documentaire émouvant mais à portée sociale.Parce qu\u2019il est facile de faire des films industriels à Montréal, il devient très difficile de continuer à réaliser ces films muets de 18 images par seconde, surtout lorsqu\u2019il n\u2019y a pas de public ou d\u2019endroits pour les montrer.Il n\u2019est pas nécessaire qu\u2019une communauté de cinéma expérimental soit très grande.La communauté de New York est minuscule corn parée au nombre d\u2019artistes autres que les artistes du cinéma, mais c\u2019est une communauté.Elle a ses salles de cinéma, ses publications, ses critiques et une situation reconnue dans le monde de l\u2019art.Ce réseau de relations permet aux cinéastes d\u2019exister sans être engloutis par l\u2019industrie cinématographique.Ce sens de la communauté est une des choses qui manquent à Montréal.Non seulement un cinéaste du cinéma expérimental travaillant à Montréal travaillerait contre le courant, mais il le ferait seul, sans encouragement, sans appui.Les Exclus de New York savent où se trouve le groupe représentant l\u2019ordre établi mais à Montréal, il n\u2019y a pas de groupe représentant l\u2019ordre établi.L\u2019absence de ce groupe est aussi liée à l\u2019absence de tradition historique.En art, les concepts ne sortent pas du vide.Ils se développent par rapport à ce qui a déjà existé.Il n\u2019y a pas eu de cinéastes du cinéma expérimental importants à Montréal au cours des années \u201940, \u201950 ou \u201960 à qui les jeunes cinéastes pourraient s\u2019identifier.Les cinéastes du cinéma expérimental montréalais attendent toujours leur Bor-duas, leur Maya Deren.Cette absence de tradition dans le cinéma expérimental devient apparente lorsque je visionne les films des jeunes cinéastes indépendants montréalais.Je suis étonné de retrouver dans ces films des versions miniatures des films conventionnels de fiction ou de non-fiction.Ils sont souvent plus audacieux, et certainement meilleurs, que les films commerciaux, mais il est évident qu\u2019ils sont modelés sur les films de l\u2019industrie plutôt que sur les films du cinéma expérimental.Les films expérimentaux qui sont montrés localement me semblent faire partie du genre film d\u2019étudiants.Ce genre inclut des films tels ceux basés sur la pixilation ou l\u2019imagerie surréaliste et ceux sur des sujets tels que les difficultés de faire du cinéma ou des imitations de classiques du cinéma.C\u2019est un genre merveilleux mais ce n\u2019est pas du cinéma expérimental.Il est intéressant de noter que la plupart des étudiants se détournent en ce moment de leur propre genre; ils font des documentaires miniatures style O.N.F.et des mélodrammes pour la télévision.Les cinéastes du cinéma expérimental font des films d\u2019étudiants et les étudiants font des films industriels.Mon argument final sur la situation du cinéma expérimental concerne les salles de cinéma.Il est essentiel pour les cinéastes du cinéma expérimental d\u2019avoir une salle de cinéma et un public.Il n\u2019est pas nécessaire que ni l\u2019un, ni l\u2019autre ne soit très grand, mais ces cinéastes doivent savoir qu\u2019il sera possible de montrer leurs films à un public intéressé.Ce qui caractérise le milieu newyorkais c\u2019est qu\u2019il existe plusieurs endroits où pour ces cinéastes, peuvent faire visionner leurs films.Ils montrent leurs films et voient ceux des autres.Ils tirent leur sentiment de communauté du fait d\u2019être près des cinéastes, des critiques et d\u2019un public intéressé.Cette situation est l\u2019une des composantes essentielles pour qu\u2019une communauté de cinéma ex-périementale soit viable.J\u2019espère sincèrement que Le Cinéma parallèle, la nouvelle salle de cinéma à Montréal, jouera ce rôle, mais il sera impossible de savoir avant au moins un an.J\u2019hésite à faire des généralisations colossales mais je crois qu\u2019une généralisation s\u2019impose ici: mes observations concernant Montréal ne s\u2019appliquent pas seulement à Montréal mais à tout leCanada.J\u2019aimerais bien avoir tort au sujet de ma généralisation mais je crois que j\u2019ai plutôt raison.Il y a quelques excellents cinéastes du cinéma expérimental canadiens et québécois mais il n\u2019y a pas de communauté, pas de mouvement, pas de tradition.LES CINÉASTES NEWYORKAIS Maintenant que j\u2019ai parlé du milieu montréalais par rapport à celui de New York, je serai plus spécifique sur les films de ces Exclus de New York.Je traiterai de leurs films brièvement avec l\u2019intention de donner un aperçu du type et de la qualité de leur travail; les paragraphes qui suivent devront être considérés comme l\u2019introduction de l\u2019approche critique avec laquelle ces films devront être considérés plus tard.Dans un autre article, je traiterai plus en profondeur de deux des cinéastes rencontrés à New York, Vincent Grenier et J.J.Murphy.AILINE MAYER: À première vue, le film intitulé XX apparaît comme une abstraction géométrique en mouvement mais on reconnaît graduellement dans l\u2019image, des parties d\u2019un corps humain, vues d\u2019en bas.À ce stade, le film apparaît toujours comme un dessin géométrique mais il devient lisible.Il s\u2019agit d\u2019une personne sautant sur un tremplin, filmée par en-dessous du tremplin, celui-ci dominant dans l\u2019image.Pendant que ce processus d\u2019interprétation se produisait, une autre caractéristique de l'image devenait apparente.À cause du rebondissement rythmé et très peu varié, le spectateur a le temps de regarder le film attentivement.Par cet examen minutieux, on découvre des taches d\u2019eau sur la pellicule, comme si le film avait été endommagé en laboratoire.Au moment où on réalise ceci, le film se termine sur une vue de l\u2019eau de la piscine et de la personne plongeant.Ceci peut paraître simpliste, mais lorsque l\u2019on comprend le style de Mayer, le film prend alors d\u2019autres dimensions plus complexes.Ce cinéaste fait elle-même son travail de laboratoire et ses films reflètent ce contrôle additionnel des images.Puisque la plupart des cinéastes du cinéma expérimental, à peu d\u2019exceptions près, envoient leurs films à des laboratoires commerciaux, Mayer a profité de cette voie inexplorée du cinéma et en a tiré son propre style.Sachant qu\u2019elle contrôle sa copie, les taches d\u2019eau n\u2019apparaissent plus comme étant accidentelles.Elles sont un élément essentiel de son film, sinon la clé.Il faut se rappeler que XX a été tourné avec une caméra montée sous un tremplin, presque dans l\u2019eau, et l\u2019action du film mène à un plongeon qui, bien entendu, éclaboussera la caméra.XX est le nom d\u2019un type de film en même temps que le titre du film.En regardant le film de cette manière, on accorde aux taches d\u2019eau une signification narrative parce qu\u2019elles présagent ce qui va se passer.Les taches d\u2019eau réfèrent en plus d\u2019une manière fascinante au processus du tournage et au processus du développement.Le style de Mayer est extrêmement intelligent et XX est un film d\u2019une qualité étonnante.MARK GRAFF: En regardant plusieurs parties d\u2019un film en huit parties et un film appelé X, plusieurs des préoccupations de Graff me sont devenues évidentes.Il utilise parfois une image au point mais il s\u2019intéresse surtout aux images obscurcies ou initialement méconnaissables.L\u2019image claire de l\u2019intérieur d\u2019un appartement devient une masse de points tourbillonnant accompagnés d\u2019éclats de lumière; il s\u2019agit d\u2019une vue panoramique d\u2019un appartement mais elle est masquée de sorte qu\u2019une petite partie de l\u2019écran, en bas à droite, nous laisse entrevoir la pièce; on reconnaît un corps nu mais l\u2019image de ce corps n\u2019est pas au point.Le but de ses films est de frustrer le spectateur dans son désir de tout voir et de tout comprendre ce qu\u2019il voit.Ce sont des films explicitement antiréalistes.La séquence probablement la plus énergique est basée sur une série d\u2019images abstraites en mouvement que nous comprenons graduellement lorsqu\u2019elles se précisent au fur et à mesure que la lumière est admise entre deux corps humains en mouvement.>* -r * 4» ^ From The Rainbow Bridge, 1975 by Vicki Peterson.28 JIM JENNINGS: Ce cinéaste est un paysagiste représentant le monde comme seul le cinéma peut le faire.Il balaye le paysage, caméra en main, pointant souvent vers le ciel et les branches couvertes de feuilles.En fait, existe-t-il des paysages sans terre?Je ne crois pas, je devrais peut-être l'appeler un paysagiste céleste.L\u2019image est tordue et apparaît souvent en plusieurs impressions.Il y a des variations dans le temps de pose, la mise au point et le travelling optique.Ses films s\u2019apparentent à ceux de Brakhage et de Snow mais ils n\u2019ont le style ni de l\u2019un, ni de l'autre de ces cinéastes.TIM KENNEDY: Peter Kubelka a élaboré une théorie selon laquelle les images d\u2019un film sont formées de lumière et d\u2019absence de lumière.Le film de Kennedy, Revision, réalisé en 1974, débute sans lumière et se développe au fur et à mesure que la lumière entre dans l\u2019image.La lumière apparaît périodiquement sans rythme défini, comme si elle était admise par l\u2019action du vent soulevant un rideau dans une pièce sombre.Lorsque la lumière apparaît, le spectateur voit dans la profondeur, encore plus loin que la noirceur, comme si le rideau cachait le monde.À la fin de ce film de quatre minutes, il devient évident que le spectateur voyait la lumière qui s\u2019infiltrait entre les corps sombres de deux amants.Les rideaux sont des corps humains.Kennedy a réalisé un film abstrait sur l\u2019acte sexuel en le filmant de sorte que le spectateur n\u2019en saisisse le sens qu\u2019à la toute fin du film.C\u2019est un film dont il est intéressant de faire l\u2019expérience.lumière très semblable à celle du film de Brakhage A Text of Light, à une échelle toutefois beaucoup plus modeste.La lumière est aussi le sujet du film Hush, un film réalisé en 1976, utilisant un temps de pose très long et dont le grain et une certaine image d\u2019un pont rappellent Turner.Kennedy pourrait bien devenir un cinéaste dont la principale préoccupation est la possibilité infinie de variations de lumière.RICHARD LEVINE: Un film peut être vu comme un système élaboré des ombres des taches qui se trouvent sur un bout de film projeté sur un écran.Ce cinéaste utilise son ombre dans ses films et ceci nous amène à un enchaînement d\u2019idées complexe .Le film lui-même est un système d\u2019ombres et Levine a filmé sa propre om bre qui est ensuite projetée sur un écran à l\u2019aide d\u2019un système basé sur les ombres.Ses films sont des exemples d\u2019un type de film qui amène le spectateur à réfléchir sur la théorie cinématographique.Il a aussi fait un film très réussi qui utilise aussi son ombre mais où il s\u2019agit d\u2019une boucle de pellicule qui se détruit en passant à plusieurs reprises dans un projecteur.CHARLIE AHEARN: Ce cinéaste travaille dans un style associé à Zorns Lemma de Hollis Frampton.D\u2019une part, le film de Ahearn KVYKMIND FILM est un film éducatif mais son style est sans contredit celui d\u2019un film expérimental.L\u2019aspect éducatif du film a trait à la langue islandaise alors que le style est un montage rapide de mots et d\u2019images.Un autre film, The Body, a été réalisé en utilisant une caméra sans objectif.C\u2019est une célébration de la PETER HUTTON: Tout comme le film de Ahearn possède un contenu éducatif dominé cependant par un style expérimental, les films de Hutton pourraient être décrits comme des documentaires de voyage où domine le style expérimental.Un de ses films porte sur l\u2019Orient et fait l\u2019usage du fondu au noir pour lier les images en douceur.On y retrouve des images telles un feu d\u2019artifice la nuit, une petite fille s\u2019amusant avec un python et un combat de coqs que nous pourrions retrouver dans un documentaire de voyage mais qui cependant deviennent quelque chose de très différent dans un film muet sans la narration habituelle.Un de ses films en cours est un documentaire de voyage mais cette fois sur New York avec de jolies images telles une silhouette de la ligne d\u2019horizon de la ville, un orage et des pigeons en vol sur un fond de ciel nuageux où la lumière perce occasionnellement.VICKI PETERSON: Le plus beau film que j\u2019ai vu au cours de ma visite est The Rainbow Bridge, parties I et II.Dans ce film, le montage est poussé à son extrême car chacune des images \u201cframe\u201d est différente de la précédente et de la suivante.Il s\u2019agit d\u2019un film entièrement monté mais le montage n\u2019est pas du type conventionnel fait sur un appareil à montage.Tout le montage s\u2019est fait dans la caméra en exposant une image à la fois.Les meilleures effets du film sont des motifs géométriques formés par une succession d\u2019images et la persistance de notre vision.Un motif en forme de X est formé par l\u2019alternance d\u2019une image de la mer rencontrant le ciel, prise à un angle de 45° et d\u2019une autre image du même sujet avec la caméra inclinée dans l\u2019autre direction.La ligne d\u2019horizon qui divise la mer et le ciel forme une des lignes du X lorsque la caméra est inclinée dans une direction et l\u2019autre ligne du X lorsque la caméra est inclinée dans l\u2019autre direction.Ces images alternées sont répétées pendant suffisamment de temps pour permettre au spectateur de percevoir la forme géométrique du X ainsi que les couleurs de la mer.L\u2019effet est très réussi mais dans ce film, les effets sont meilleurs que le film pris dans son entier.ROBERT ATTANASIO: Lensound est le seul film réalité en Super 8 que j\u2019ai vu au cours de ma visite et c\u2019était le film le plus intelligent de tout le groupe.La synchronisation du son et de l\u2019image est utilisée en 16 mm.surtout pour permettre au public d\u2019entendre le dialogue et il est rarement utilisé avec succès dans le cinéma expérimental.La synchronisation du son et de l\u2019image des films en Super 8 tend à imiter les films en 16 mm.les plus ordinaires avec des résultats très peu intéressants com- me on pourrait s\u2019y attendre.Attanasio a réalisé un film en Super 8 avec synchronisation du son et de l\u2019image sans que l\u2019on y voit une seule bouche; il n\u2019y a pas de personnage parlant dans ce film.Le film comprend des images d\u2019une rue et plus tard, d\u2019une chambre, qui montrent à quel point le cinéaste est emballé par le fait d\u2019utiliser une caméra syncro en nous laissant voir le microphone frappant légèrement l\u2019objectif de façon rythmée.Le spectateur voit le microphone frappant légèrement sur l\u2019objectif et sait que le film utilise la synchronisation du son et de l\u2019image mais personne ne dit un mot et on n\u2019y voit pas le cinéaste.Le cinéaste communique sa joie par des variations dans le rythme des petits coups accompagnés de mouvements de caméra s\u2019apparentant à des mouvements de danse.Même s\u2019il n\u2019y a pas de raison technique pour laquelle ce film n\u2019aurait pu être réalisé par une équipe utilisant un équipement Arriflex-Nagra-Sennheiser-Steenbeck de $30,000., il n\u2019aurait pas été réalisé avec un système de son synchronisé 16 mm.très dispendieux.C\u2019est de façon très distincte un film tourné en Super 8, tourné avec une caméra robuste de quelques centaines de dollars.Le film n\u2019est pas entièrement réussi en tant que film pris dans son entier, mais l\u2019idée est une solution brillante à un problème du cinéma: comment la synchronisation peut-elle être incorporée au film expérimental.ÉPILOGUE En terminant, j\u2019aimerais vous rappeler la structure et le but de cet essai.J\u2019ai rencontré onze jeunes cinéastes du cinéma expérimental à New York, visionné leurs films et je me suis fait une idée du milieu qui les a encouragé dans leur travail.Ma façon de voir la situation newyorkaise m\u2019a amené à réfléchir sur la pénurie de cinéastes du cinéma expérimental à Montréal; c\u2019est pourquoi dans la partie suivante j\u2019ai fait ressortir les contrastes entre Montréal et New York.J\u2019espère que le fait de comprendre le milieu montréalais et ses difficultés aura pour effet d\u2019encourager les cinéastes du cinéma expérimental en puissance à commencer à travailler.Montréal est sûrement assez grand pour l\u2019industrie et le cinéma expérimental.Le Paul-Émile Borduas du cinéma expérimental serait-il en train de lire cet essai?Pour terminer, j\u2019ai brièvement parlé des films que j\u2019ai vus à New York afin de donner un aperçu de la diversité dans le cinéma expérimental.* Traduction: Nicole Morin-McCallum.EXPERIMENTAL FILM 1978: New York/Montreal by John W.Locke Recently I spent several days in New York looking at experimental films by young filmmakers who were struggling to establish themselves.Bear in mind that even though the number of experimental filmmakers in New York is minuscule compared to the number of artists working in other mediums there is an experimental film establishment: These filmmakers were the Outsiders.I came away from the visit saturated with films, pleased with the promise they showed, and thinking about why I had to go to New York to see them.Why is there not a Montreal experimental film establishment with young outsiders struggling to gain acceptance?There is certainly a Montreal painting establishment.Where are the filmmakers?In order to approach these 29 questions, I will make some general observations about the New York filmmakers and their films.Of course these observations represent my overall impressions and are not uniformly applicable to all the filmmakers or their films.However they are fundamentally accurate, and I now think that this overall view of the New York group is instructive in relation to the Montreal situation.NEW YORK Filmmakers are often uncomfortable when referred to as artists.Commercial filmmakers in particular do not usually think of themselves as artists.Documentary filmmakers will discuss their work as if they were journalists rather visual artists, and fiction filmmakers often sound as if they have more in common with «best seller» novelists than with visual artists.The New York filmmakers I visited felt no hesitation: They saw themselves as visual artists.This topic did not need to be discussed, just as it would not be discussed with a painter.These filmmakers were unambiguously situated in the art world.They were artists and filmmakers, not filmmakers who stumbled awkwardly over the word «artist».Their milieu was So Ho, not the commercial film production centre in New York\u2019s West 50\u2019s.These filmmakers also positioned themselves with respect to the work of earlier experimental filmmakers.Like other young visual artists, they seemed most aware of their immediate predecessors and contemporaries, rather than being explicitly oriented to the historical traditions of their medium.They knew Hollis Frampton better than Maya Deren and Deren better than Hans Richter or Oskar Fischinger.Even so they understood that they were part of an experimental film movement which has a place in the history of cinema.This sense of being a part of a historical tradition did not surface in their conversation as an inflated estimation of their own importance, rather it surfaced as the courage to continue their work.Another salient characteristic of these filmmakers was that not one of them made their living from their films, and this is putting it mildly.Actually none of these filmmakers received more than trivial incomes from the sale and rental of their films.Occasionally they might receive a grant, but basically they supported themselves in some way other than making films.Also when they looked towards the future, they did not ever expect to make their living from their films.Young New York painters can dream of making it with the accompanying financial rewards.Young experimental filmmakers may dream of making it, but they know that they will still be impoverished, unless they teach or become a popular performer putting on a traveling lecture show with their films.To me this means being an experimental filmmaker is a more courageous act than being a painter in New York.It requires an unswerving commitment to the art.Even though these filmmakers did not expect direct financial rewards from their work, they did expect for their films to be seen.There are a number of places in New York showing the work of experimental filmmakers: The Collective for Living Cinema, Film Forum, Millennium, Anthology Film Archives, The Whitney Museum, The Museum of Modern Art.Several of these organizations emphasize the work of young experimental filmmakers while others have social documentary or historical orientations, but they all on occasion show new experimental films.One of the major concern of the filmmakers I visited was the difficulty of getting their work shown.This was their struggle against, or to enter if you prefer, the establishment.Nevertheless there are theatres in New York where these filmmakers can aspire to show their work and when they succeed there will be an audience.Their struggle is painful to them, but it has direction and it is a realistic struggle.They will get their screenings.It would be misleading to suggest that these young experimentalists form an organized group.They do not.From Beast of Nazareth by Richard Levine.Photo R.Levine.From Images of Asian Musuc (A diarv from Life 1974) by Peter Hutton, 1973-74. But I do think they are more related to each other than they realize.After all they are united by being the Outsider.More specifically they are part of the audience at the theatres showing experimental films, and because they see these current developments, they can react to them.They have a good sense of the current state of experimental films.This awareness of their contemporaries\u2019work is a very important aspect of the development of an art such as experimental film which has a historical tradition.I would not be particularly impressed with a young filmmaking hermit who took to the wilderness in 1967 after seeing Michael Snow\u2019s Wavelength and emerged in 1977 with the consequence of ten years\u2019 thought and work in the form of a three hour film shot by a camera moving over a wilderness landscape, not realizing that Snow had finished La Région Centrale in 1971.Artists have an obligation to be aware of their contemporaries\u2019 work.The individual act of making a film may be one person operation in some cases, but each experimental film will be seen in relation to other films.The work should take the milieu into account, if only to reject the milieu.Even Stan Brakhage comes down from the mountains occasionally to see what is happening.Another relation between these filmmakers has to do with the type of films they want to make in the future.During our discussions, they gave no indication of wanting to make a conventional documentary or narrative film.They are not temporarily making experimental films while waiting for an opportunity to make a documentary or feature.They are committed experimental filmmakers and have no ambition to make industrial films.A final connection between these filmmakers concerns technical characteristics of their films.With a few exceptions, their films are silent, 16mm and 18 frames per second.Using 16 mm is now quite ordinary, and it only prevents their films from being shown at the commercial theatres designed for 35 mm features.However their decision to use the 18 frames per second speed does determine who will see their films.For example most permanently installed Xenon or arc light source 16 mm projectors only run at 24 frames per second.The assumption of the manufacturers is that all contemporary 16 mm films have sound tracks and are to be shown at sound speed, 24 frames per second.This assumption means that these 18 frames per second experimental films cannot be shown in the theatres with the best projection facilities because the best projectors generally only run at 24 frames per second.The members of this group of experimental filmmakers independently arrived at the decision to use 18 frames per second for a number of reasons: it was cheaper, using less raw film stock to produce the same running time of finished film.It was their aesthetic choice to make silent films and thus the usual reason for shooting at sound speed was not relevant.And it was understood that the screening facilities available to young experimental filmmakers would probably have portable projectors which do have both 18 frames per second and 24 frames per second.After visiting with these young New York filmmakers, I returned to Montreal greatly encouraged about the state of experimental film.The members of this group have much in common as experimental filmmakers, but I am hesitant to say that they form a stylistic movement.I would also be hesitant to say whether stylistic movements are necessary or even desirable, so that is not a problem.The thing which interests me most about these filmmakers, in addition to their films of course, is that they exist: Their existence implies that experimental film continues as a tradition.MONTREAL A very serious question I asked myself when I began thinking about the New York experience in Montreal was this: Why did I have to go to New York to see experimental film?The obvious first part of an answer to this question is the lack of experimental filmmakers in Montreal.But this answer still leads to another «why?».Why is there a lack of experimental filmmakers in Montreal?It would seem excessive for me to claim that I could give a simple answer to this question, but I do think that an understanding of the Montreal experimental film lacuna can be based on the contrasts between the milieu of the young experimental filmmakers I described and the Montreal milieu.Montreal is a real film centre.Big international productions are shot here; the National Film Board is here; there is an active exploitation film production business; and there was a prolific Quebec fiction film movement.The film industry is very active, and that is good.But regrettably the activity of the film industry has no positive effect on the situation regarding experimental film.The professionals \u2014 note the word \u2014¦ in the film industry dominate the Montreal film milieu, and these professionals are precisely the people who do not know what to do with the word «art».They may actually be artists, but the word embarasses them.After all they are in business, an industry.They are professionals.By the way, what would a professional painter be?a house painter perhaps?I speculate, and I cannot do more, than one of the factors in the lack of an active Montreal experimental community is the domination of the film milieu by the industry.Psychologically speaking, it is much further from So Ho to New York\u2019s West 50\u2019s film centre than it is from the thinking of any Montreal filmmaker to the National Film Board.It is as if Montreal is not large enough to allow the experimental filmmakers to get away from the industry: There is always a friend needing help on a big shoot or a possibility of getting N.F.B.support for a moving, but socially significant, little documentary.The possibilities for making industrial films in Montreal make it very difficult to continue producing those 18 frames per second, silent films, particularly when there is no audience and no place to screen them.Experimental film communities do not need to be large.The New York community is tiny compared to the number of non-filmmaking artists, but it is a community.It has its theatres, its publications, its critics and an acknowledged position in the art world.This network of relations allows the filmmakers to exist without being engulfed by the film industry.This sense of community is one of the things lacking in Montreal.An experimental filmmaker working in Montreal would not only be working against the current but would be doing it alone, without encouragement and support.The New York Outsiders know where the establishment lives, but in Montreal there is no experimental film establishment.The lack of this establishment is also connected to the lack of a historical tradition.Art ideas do not come out of a void.They are developed in relation to what has already existed.In Montreal there are no major experimental filmmakers from the 40\u2019s, 50\u2019s or 60\u2019s for a young filmmaker to respond to.An experimental filmmaker working now has to work without a tradition.Montreal experimental filmmakers are waiting for their Borduas, for their Maya Deren.This lack of an experimental film tradition becomes apparent when I see films by young Montreal independent filmmakers.I am surprised to find that these films tend to be miniature versions of conventional fiction or non-fiction films.They are often more adventurous, and indeed better, than the commercial films, but it is clear that their models come from the film industry rather than from experimental film.The film which are actually shown as local experimental films seem to me to be part of the student film genre.This genre includes films such as those based on pixilation comedy or surrealist imagery and those on topics such as the difficulties of filmmaking or a spoof of a film classic.It is a wonderful genre, but these films are not experimental films.Interestingly students in Montreal are now largely turning away from their own genre; they are making miniature N.F.B.documentaries and T.V.melodramas.The experimental filmmakers are making student films, and the students are making industrial films.My final point about the state of experimental film in Montreal concerns theatres.It is essential for experimental filmmakers to have a theatre and an audience.Neither needs to be large, but these filmmakers have to know that there is a possibility of showing their work to an interested audience.One of the characteristics of the New York milieu is the multiplicity of the screening possibilities.The filmmakers show their work, see the films of others and derive a sense of community from being in the same space with filmmakers, critics and an interested public.This experience is an essential component of a viable experimental film community.It is my sincere hope that the new Montreal theatre, Le Cinéma parallèle, will serve this function, but it may be a year before this judgement can be made.I am reluctant to make enormous generalizations, but I feel one is called for here: my comments about Montreal are not just about Montreal, but about all of Canada.I would like to be mistaken about generalizing my comments, but I think I am not.There are a few excellent Canadian experimental filmmakers, but there is not a community, a movement or a tradition.NEW YORK FILMMAKERS Now that I have discussed the.Montreal milieu in relation to that of New York, I will be more specific about the films of the New York Outsiders.Their films will be treated briefly with the intention of conveying a sense of the type and quality of their work; these paragraphs should be considered as opening sections of the critical treatment the films should be given at a later time.Elsewhere in this issue two of the filmmakers visited in New York, Vincent Grenier and J.J.Murphy, are considered at greater length.ALINE MAYER: The film called XX initially looks like a geometric abstraction in motion, but gradually parts of a human figure viewed from below are recognized in the frame.At this point the film continues to look like a geometric design, but it becomes readable.It is a person bouncing on a diving board viewed from beneath the board with the moving board dominating the frame.While this process of interpretation was taking place, another characteristic of the image became apparent.Because the bouncing was rhythmical and not greatly varied, the viewer has time to look at the film very closely.This careful viewing reveals that the print has water spots on it, as if the laboratory had made a mess while making the print.As this is being realized, the film comes to an end with shots of the swimming pool\u2019s water and the person diving.This sounds very simple, but when Mayer\u2019s style is understood, the film takes on additional levels of complexity.This filmmaker does her own lab work and her films reflect the additional control over the images.Since even experimental filmmakers send their films to commercial labs with a very few exceptions, Mayer has seized on an unexplored possibility of film and created her style from it.Knowing that she controls her print, the water spots no longer appear accidental.They are an essential element in her film, if not its key.Remember XX is a film made with a camera under a diving board, almost in the water and the action of the film is leading up to a dive, which will of course splash water towards the camera.And XX is the name of a type of film stock as well as the title of the film.Understanding the film in this way gives the water spots narrative significance because they foreshadow what is going to happen.In addition to this the water spots refer in a fascinating way to the filming process and the process of making the print.Mayer's is an extremely intelligent style, and XX is a surprisingly good film.31 MARK GRAFF: While viewing several parts of an eight part film called film in 8 parts and a film called X, a number of Graff\u2019s con-focused image, but his primary interest is in images which were obscured or initially unrecognizable.A clear image of an apartment\u2019s interior becomes a mass of swirling grain with flashes of light; a camera pans over an apartment, but it is masked, so only a small portion of the screen in the lower right corner reveals the room; a nude body is recognized but it is out of focus.His films have to do with frustrating the viewer\u2019s desire to see everything and to understand all that is seen.They are explicitly anti-realistic films.Perhaps his strongest sequence was based on a series of moving abstract images which gradually came to be understood to be formed by light admitted between moving human bodies.JIM JENNINGS: This filmmaker is a landscape artist representing the world in the ways unique to film.His camera is usually hand held and sweeps over the landscape, often pointing up at the sky and leaf covered branches.Actually are there any landscape paintings without land in them?I think not, so perhaps I should call him a «skyscape» artist.The image twists and is frequently seen in multiple exposures.There are variations in exposure and the sharpness of focus, along with zooms.His films are related to films of Brakhage and Snow, but are not in the style of either of these filmmakers.TIM KENNEDY: Peter Kubelka has articulated a theory emphasizing that film images are formed from light and the absence of light.Kennedy\u2019s 1974 film Revision begins with no light and develops as areas of light enter the frame.The light enters periodically without a definite rhythm, as if admitted by the wind blowing open a curtain in a darkened room.When the light appears, the viewer sees into depth, past the darkness again as if a curtain is hiding the world.At the end of this four minute film it becomes clear that the viewer has been seeing light admitted between the darkened bodies of lovers.The curtains are human bodies.Kennedy has made an abstract film of the sexual act by filming it in such a way that the viewer does not recognize it until the very end of the film.It is an interesting film to experience.Another film, The Body, was made by using a camera body without a lens.It is a celebration of light in much the same way as Brakhage\u2019s A Text of Light, except on a much more modest scale.Light is also the subject of Hush, a 1976 film using overexposure, the film grain and a bridge image which recalls Turner.Kennedy may well become a filmmaker concentrating on the possibilities of variations with light.RICHARD LEVINE: Film can be discussed as an elaborate system of shadows of the markings on strip of film projected on a screen.This filmmaker uses his own shadow in his films, and this can lead to a complicated train of thought.Film is itself a system of shadows, and Levine has filmed his own shadow which is then projected onto a screen by means of a system based on shadows.His films are examples of a type of film that leads the viewer into thinking about film theory.He also has made a quite successful work which uses his shadow, but which is a film of a film loop destroying itself as it runs repeatedly through a projector.CHARLIE AHEARN: This filmmaker works in a style associated with Hollis Frampton\u2019s Zorns Lemma.On one level Ahearn\u2019s KUIKMIND FILM is an educational film, but its style is unquestionably that of an experimental film.The educational aspect of the film concerns the Icelandic language, while the style is a rapid montage of words and images.PETER HUTTON: Just as Ahearn\u2019s film has an educational content but is dominated by its experimental style, Hutton\u2019s films could be described as travel films dominated by their experimental style.One of his films is about the Orient, and uses fades to black to link images smoothly.It has images such as fireworks at night, a little girl playing with a python and a cock fight which might be found in a travelogue, but which become something quite different in a silent film without the usual voice-over narration.A work-inprogress was a travel film, but this time about New York with lovely images such as a silhouette of the city\u2019s skyline, a rain storm and pigeons flying against a cloudy sky with light breaking through occasionally.VICKI Z.PETERSON: The Rainbow Bridge, Parts I and II, was the most beautiful film I saw during my visit.In this film montage is taken to one of its extremes because each frame is a different shot from the preceding frame and the following frame.It is a totally edited film, but the editing is not the conventional type done on an editing machine.All of the editing was done in the camera by exposing a single frame at a time.The best effects of the film are geometric patterns formed by the succession of images and our persistence of vision.An X like pattern is formed by alternating a single frame of the sea meeting the sky, taken with the horizon at a 45° angle, with another single frame of the same subject taken with the camera tilted in the other direction.The horizon line dividing the sea and the sky form one line of the X when the camera is tilted in one direction and the other line of the X when the camera is tilted in the other direction.These alternating frames are repeated long enough to let the viewer perceive both the geometric X and the colours of the seascape.It is a very beautiful effect, but in this film the effects are better than the film taken as a whole.ROBERT ATTANASIO: Lensound was the only Super 8 film I saw during my visit, and it was the most brilliant film of the entire group.Lip-sync sound tends to be used in 16 mm primarily to allow the audience to hear lines being spoken and has only rarely been used successfully in experimental films.Super 8 lip-sync sound films tend to mimic the most ordinary 16 mm sound films with the results being predictably uninteresting.Attanasio has made a lip-sync sound Super 8 film with no lips present; there are no talking characters in the film.The film consists of shots in the street, and later in a room, which express the filmmaker\u2019s excitement at having a sync sound camera by showing a microphone rhythmically tapping on the lens.The viewer sees the microphone tap the lens and knows that the film is using sync sound, but not a word is spoken and the filmmaker is not seen.The filmmaker\u2019s joy is communicated by variation in the rhythm of the tapping combined with dance-like camera movements.Although there is no technical reason why this film could not have been made by a crew using a $30,000.Arriflex-Nagra-Sennheiser-Steenbeck rig, it would not have been made with an expensive 16 mm sync sound system.It is distinctively a Super 8 film, made with a sturdy camera costing a few hundred dollars.The film is not completely successful as a total film, but the idea is a brilliant solution to a filmic problem: How can lip-sync sound be incorporated into an experimental film?EPILOGUE In closing I would like to remind you of the structure and intent of this essay.I visited eleven young experimental filmmakers in New York, viewed their films and formed ideas about the milieu which encouraged their work.My understanding of the New York situation led me to think about Montreal and its lack of experimental filmmakers, so in the next section I brought out contrasts between Montreal and New York.It is my hope that understanding the Montreal milieu and its difficulties can have the effect of encouraging potential Montreal experimental filmmakers to begin their work.Montreal should be large enough for the industry and the experimental filmmakers.Is the Paul-Emile Borduas of experimental film reading this essay?Finally I briefly discussed the films I saw in New York to convey a sense of the diversity within experimental film.¦ 32 Two Films, Two Filmmakers: VINCENT GRENIER AND J.J.MURPHY From Print Generation, 1973-74 by J.J.Murphy * *« ** * * ***¦ « \u201d\t*\t>\tm f'* * * \u2022 ¦ * »* » *- « * * 5\t* * * ,* %\t** %»\t* * v* *\tV* mj* * \u2022 * * ' *\t*4 *\u2022 *?*\t# ?', *\t» * * * * * * * *» a* « *\t* ?5*»%* * » * » «.,*» » * « «,» *» * * \u2022 *.* ¦ * *?*\u201e** * \u2022 « *¦ *?;.\u2019*\u2022* * * «.\t%» V%\t*\t.* #.* *\u2022 * », * , \u2019 - # *%* # \u2022 * % Ô *?\t** * , » *.* ?*%-,** ?**« ¦ ¦ : #«\u2022 .*\u2022 ?* ?*>*'*,\u2022 ?.* ->* >-*¦ ' .\t'*\u2022 \u2018«V.«.* *«, ¦ * \u2022 \u2022\u2022 \u2022V «\u2022 ,,*\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 * « * .* **,\"* '\u2022 \u2022**.' , \u2022*.\u2022**\u2019%*' *?*.* a.\u2019»\t* by John W.Locke A new generation of filmmakers is beginning to make their presence felt.There was a time when filmmaking was learned from a friend or through an apprenticeship.Now extremely good filmmakers are beginning to come out of the plethora of college and university film schools.In commercial film this new generation is represented by Coppola, Lucas and Scorsese.Vincent Grenier and J.J.Murphy are two of experimental film\u2019s representatives of the new generation because each of them holds a masters deqree in film.It is too early to predict whether film education will affect the directions of film in the long run, but I cannot help but recall Jean-Luc Godard\u2019s statement about himself and the other New Wave film directors: \u201cWe are the first filmmakers to know that Griffith exists.\u201d (Cahiers du Cinéma), December 1962).The New Wave directors may have been the first, but they are not the last.This new generation of experimental filmmakers not only knows that Griffith existed, but they also know about Fernand Léger and Maya Deren.The future of experimental filmmaking looks promising to me.Actually the two films being considered, Grenier\u2019s World in Focus and Murphy\u2019s Print Generation do have more in common than their creators\u2019 education.They are both about the relation between perceiving and understanding, between seeing and knowing what is being seen.Both works are epistemological films, metaphorically speaking of course, because each film leads the viewer to think about thinking and knowing.The viewer first wonders about what is being seen and then learning what is actually being seen, wonders how the thing actually being seen could have appeared as it originally did.In Grenier\u2019s film it is literally the opening of a book of knowledge which reveals what is being seen.In Murphy\u2019s film the subjects are revealed by repetition and clarification.Though this description makes the films sound more like philosophical essays than experimental films, they do not always appear to be as serious as I have indicated them to be.Each of the films is a very sensuous work, as I hope the more detailed treatment of each film will show.VINCENT GRENIER World in Focus is a film taken from a book, but is is not quite like a film adaptation of Great Expectations or War and Peace.Grenier\u2019s 1976 film is more like a work of mystery in which the object of the mystery is itself a book.The book is a Rand McNally World Atlas.If I asked you to imagine what a film based on an atlas would be like, you would probably picture a documentary film with shots of the African wilds, the Arctic and the Great Wall of China.Even if I were more precise and said that the film was literally about the book, rather than being about the world represented by the book, I suspect that you would expect a film featuring maps and charts with a voice on the soundtrack lulling you to sleep with statistical data.In reality World in 33 Focus is not like any of these hypothetical World Atlas films.In Grenier\u2019s film the world which is photographed is within the book itself and there is no soundtrack.The space shown in the film is confined to the pages of the book.The film opens with a shot of a textured surface with vertical striations.Initially this image is simply an abstract geometric design, but soon there is movement within the frame.The movement gradually becomes recognizable as a movement of light.It is in fact the shadow produced as pages are flipped.Shortly after noticing this, the viewer is able to piece together the clues and recognize that the opening image was the side of a book.The vertical striations had been the outer edges of pages.As the film unfolds, a new type of tension comes into play.The viewer knows that it is a film about a book and that pages are being seen, but the pages are not in focus.Thus the pages become visual objects rather than reading matter, and they become a type of uniquely photographic visual objects because they are out of focus.Remember that our conscious perception is virtually exclusively of objects in focus, unless we have neglected to put on our glasses or we are looking at photographic images.We see the world in focus unless we are looking at a film such as World in Focus.The deviation of this film from our normal way of seeing disturbs us.It is this tension between \u201cin focus\u201d and \u201cout of focus\u201d which is central to Grenier\u2019s film.After the viewer is sufficiently oriented to understand that the images are formed by flipping through a book, the images are understood in a different manner.One of the first things which is noticed is that the pages vary in interest.There will be a flash of red, creating a good page.Or a page composed entirely of print will seem comparatively dull.Also the rhythm of flipping responds to the form of the page.A page with coloured charts will be held for a longer period of time, meaning a few seconds rather than a steady flipping.A map will be arranged so thatwe see mountains, and even Canada, as words and designs on maps.The pages of the book approach being completely out of focus.A typical page will be angled towards the camera, so that it is arranged in depth rather than lying flat as we usually see a page.Because the page is seen as it extends towards the camera and because the camera\u2019s lens has an extremely shallow depth of field, only a very narrow band of the page\u2019s surface will be in focus.Most of the surface of each page is completely out of focus, but there is generally a narrow in focus band running vertically down the center of the page.We understand what we can from the narrow strip of in focus information, but we keep grasping at the blurred sourroundings.We want to know everything, but the lack of focus thwarts this desire.Hence the film leads us to think about focus.Looking at an individual image in World in Focus is somewhat like looking at a lens focus test demonstration photograph.There is clearly delineated in focus section bordered by out of focus areas.But experiencing Grenier\u2019s film is different from experiencing a depth of field test film because World in Focus is structured to make us take an aesthetic interest in the out of focus areas.If a book had been chosen with only a written text, the viewer would have been able to understand very little; only a narrow strip of words running vertically down the center of each page could have been read.The film would have become repetitious and uninteresting.Similarly if a book of photographs had been chosen, the film would have grown monotonous.But by choosing an atlas, Grenier selected the perfect book.There are pages filled with words, there are maps and charts, there are coloured sections and sections in black and white.The variety of images makes it possible to create the mystery which sustains the film: What will the next page be?Can a bit of the text be read?Will the image be held for long enough to see it clearly?Will it be more or less in focus than the earlier images?World in Focus is a rewarding film to watch: There is the action of the pages flipping, varying in rhythm and occasionally creating a flicker like effect.There are colours and compositions.There is a cinematic emphasis on the questions concerning focus.And there is even information about the world.World in Focus turns out to be surprisingly complex and satisfying, particularly for a film totally about a book.Vincent Grenier has proven himself to be a promising young Quebec experimental filmmaker.J.J.MURPHY Print Generation begins as a film which cannot be seen.There is nothing on the screen, except a few dots of light.The dots seem to coalesce into a shape which can be recognized as a walking person, but then the shape disappears.There is also a sound which could be surf, so it can be imagined that the person is walking on a beach.Even so the overall impression is of not being able to see more than a few dots and patches of light.Approximately five minutes after the start of the film, it becomes apparent that there are cuts.Thus it begins to be seen as an edited film rather than as a continuous flow.As the film continues, it becomes clear that not only are there cuts, but there ar lots of cuts.It also becomes possible to estimate the lenght of the shots at this point when the subject matter of the shots still cannot be recognized.Each shot seems to last one second, 24 frames at this film\u2019s sound speed.Print Generation is a montage film composed of a barrage of one second shots, but it took a while to perceive this.We can see its form, but not its content.The shots appear to grow steadily more distinct as the film continues.The walking person becomes recognizable as a walking woman, and this recognition hints that other images will become known: a person is sawing; there is a sign; there are firefighters with a hose.As the viewer recognizes these images and continues to think about the film, the same images appear again.The viewer gradually sees more and more repeated, recognizable images and then suddenly, in a flash, the viewer understand the film\u2019s structure.The film is composed of a fixed number of one second shots being repeated over and over as they approach clarity from the starting point of total visual obscurity.Knowing this about the film, the viewer wonders how many shots there are.Precisely what is the structure?Counting the shots reveals that there are sixty.So the film is composed of sixty shots of one second each repeated over and over in the same order.This solves the mystery of the film.Its images have been gradually becoming clear, so the subjects of the film can be recognized.And its structure has been understood by thinking about the images as they evolved from obscurity to clarity.The viewer may think at this point that it was a worthwhile experience, actually quite a good film.The film seems to end.All sixty shots have become clear.A title appears, but then the clear images begin to be repeated on the screen.By now the images have become very familiar, and the viewer may begin to learn the sequence of images.There does not need to be a conscious effort to do this; the images impose themselves, and their order becomes natural rather than surprising.The viewer may concentrate on the details of the images and begin to memorize their order.Before this can become tiring, or merely pedagogy, a new element comes into play: The images begin to go away again.Just as the viewer becomes familiar with the images, they begin to escape the mind\u2019s grasp again.Like in the earlier part of the film, the viewer is at first puzzled.Why are the images disappearing?Thus the viewer is led by the action of the film \u2014 the disappearing images \u2014 to think about the structure of the film.As the images get progressively dimmer and more difficult to see, the viewer again begins to understand the structure: The second part of the film is the inverse of the first part.In the opening half of the film, the sixty shots go from obscurity to clarity and in the second half they go from clarity to obscurity.After the structure of the film is completely understood, the viewer may question why the film should be seen all the way to the end.The film will almost certainly end precisely the way it began.For me it is at this point, where the structure becomes evident, that the film becomes particularly fascinating.During the earlier part of the film, there was lots to do.The film led the viewer to concentrate on the visual characteristics of the image, initially to recognize them and then to organize them into a structure.Now after all this has been done what is left?I would answer that the most interesting part of the film remains to be seen.As the sixty very familiar images grow dim, we attempt to retain them in memory, but the images which had been seen over and over become lost in a swirl of abstract movements.We are both frustrated and fascinated as another few images become unrecognizable with each additional cycle.We knew the images so well that it seems unthinkable that they would become unrecognizable.Yet we are literally seeing this happen, and this unexpected loss of knowledge is the most interesting aspect of the film\u2019s conclusion.We no longer understand what we are seeing, and the film ends as it began.The cycle is complete.However we do continue to recognize a walking person up to the very end and know this to be the walking woman seen through out the film.This final fragment of knowledge is a some significance: It is appropriate that the most strongly recognizable image is a walking human, and it is also notable that this final image is a walking woman, the figure which dominated Michael Snow\u2019s early work, thus producing a conscious or unconscious homage to the Master.I have not discussed the method of making Print Generation because I am concerned with the finished film rather than with its method of production, but I will mention the process to satisfy your curiosity.The film was made by first having a print made of one minute of film composed of sixty shots of one second each.Then a second print was made of this first print; then another print was made from the second print which was already a print of a print.As the successive prints continued to be made, they became more and more generations away from the original.Each generation became less clear until the final print was an abstraction having an ontological relation to the original, but hardly recognizable as the same film.The first half of the film consisted of twenty-five of the one minute print generations returning from the opening obscurity to the orignal.Then the second half consisted of twenty-five cycles of the one minute generations returning to obscurity.Print Generation is not a radically innovative work.It fits into a tradition of contemporary experimental film and is related to the work of Hollis Frampton, in particular to Zorns Lemma.I have described how the film directs us to contemplate its structure, and it is this forceful directing of our attention to aesthetic considerations which accounts for the interest of the film.It is a complex process for which we were unprepared when Frampton\u2019s work was first seen, but now we know how to go about appreciating Murphy\u2019s film because we have seen its precursors.Print Generation is not an avant-garde film, but it is a really good film.¦ 34 Les films récents que présentait Vincent Grenier en mars dernier au Cinéma Parallèle, étaient LEVANT/WHITE REVOLVED, 1976, 12 min.; X.1976, 9 min.; CATH 1975, 9 min.; PUIT DE LUMIÈRE/LIGHT SHAFT, 1975, 15 min.et finalement MONDE AU FOCUS/WORLD IN FOCUS, 1976, 20 min.Je ne parlerai, ici, que de LEVANT et X, films où le \u201cdiscours\u201d du cinéaste semble être le plus mûri, le plus radicalisé.La pratique de Vincent Grenier s\u2019établit d\u2019emblée comme moderniste; l\u2019accent est donc mis sur la littéralité du médium, sur la nature de l\u2019expérience cinématographique.\u201cThis film is very concerned with the projected, not just light or the emulsion, or the illusion or the projector, or the camera but all of them.\u201d (1) Définir la façon dont cette mise en présence des éléments cinmatographiques est opérée demande une description des films.LEVANT, tout comme X, est un film totalement abstrait.Dans LEVANT, les formes sont imprécises, blanches ou d\u2019un pastel très pale sur un fond noir, l'action est extrêmement réduite et semble, du moins à un premier visionnement, cyclique ou répétitive.Au début, des formes blanches se promènent sur ia surface noire dans des mouvements obliques ou décrivant de légères courbes puis, ces taches se transforment en (ou sont remplacées par) une bande horizontale blanche parsemée de petites taches grisâtres qui semble défiler à toute vitesse de droite à gauche, créant tantôt l\u2019impression qu\u2019une bande de nuages passe rapidement devant nos yeux, tantôt l\u2019impression que c\u2019est nous qui tournons sur nous-mêmes, une vision donc ambiguë, pouvant être sentie comme objective ou subjective.(2) Cette bande s\u2019élargit pour à certains moments envahir toute la surface (3) puis la blancheur se colore très légèrement de teintes à peine perceptibles.Une texture apparaît, devenant rapidement très précise pour ensuite disparaître après quelques secondes d\u2019existence\u201d.La façon dont la granulation est produite donne l\u2019impression d\u2019une focalisation extrêmement rapprochée découvrant des détails microscopiques, comme si la pellicule elle-même était l\u2019objet filmé.Ensuite, l\u2019écran redevient noir et le cycle reprend légèrement différent à chaque recommencement, les premières apparitions lumineuses sont de plus en plus discrètes, l\u2019accent est mis sur une image cinématographique au seuil du perceptible où le spectateur a quelquefois l'impression qu\u2019une tache vient d\u2019apparaître, sans toutefois en être sûr.Contrairement à LEVANT, X est en noir et blanc.Il utilise des formes précises, géométriques.Les mouvements sont ici aussi réduits à un minimum, plus radicalement que dans LEVANT puisqu\u2019ils ne comportent que des mouvements horizontaux et verticaux.Au début, un triangle blanc apparaît sur une surface noire, il \u201cmonte\u201d graduellement jusqu\u2019à atteindre le sommet de l\u2019écran.Une diagonale noire épouse alors l\u2019arête gauche du triangle (qui n\u2019est plus percevable comme tel puisque, occupant tout un côté de l\u2019écran, il forme un quadrilatère).Parfois, à cette diagonale noire est jointe une autre bande noire (elles surgissent simultanément) parallèle au bas de l\u2019écran, situé environ au centre, et qui traverse toute la partie noire (devenue un peu plus grise de façon à percevoir les bandes).Le quadrilatère blanc occupe progressivement plus d\u2019espace (il s\u2019avance vers la gauche).Ce faisant cependant, il perd de son intensité, devient de plus en plus gris jusqu\u2019à ressembler à la partie sombre.Les bandes noires se fondent elles aussi progressivement dans la masse grise, une fine raie de blanc restant quelquefois collée à la diagonale noire et s\u2019éteignant avec elle.Ensuite le \u201cjeu\u201d recommence mais avec des variations, à gauche, en haut, apparaît le triangle qui descend, des inversions se produisent, triangle noir sur fond blanc.etc.Cette lecture univoque, linéaire, ne peut donner qu\u2019une image partielle des films.(Elle n\u2019est d\u2019ailleurs pas une description exhaustive de l\u2019ensemble des événements du film.) Elle ressemble en fait à un plan de ville sur lequel même les maisons ne sont pas in- par Serge Bérard VINCENT GRENIER From World in Focus, 1976, by Vincent Grenier 35 scrites.Il est difficile de rendre compte des ambiguïtés spatiales présentes tout au long du film.Par exemple, dans X, ce que j\u2019ai considéré comme un triangle s\u2019avançant sur une surface bidimensionnelle peut en fait être vu comme un objet dans l\u2019espace vers lequel mon regard (lacaméra) s\u2019avancerait ou bien le mouvement du triangle, à la verticale, pourrait être senti comme se poursuivant même lorsque la forme blanche est devenue quadrilatère, ou dans la vision \u201cspatialisée\u201d, comme si mon regard scrutait la surface extrêmement rapprochée d\u2019une partie du triangle.La partie noire qui, au début, semble se lire sans ambiguïtés comme le fond devient peu à peu forme, se détachant du blanc.Lorsque le triangle est noir il peut être lu comme forme s\u2019avançant sur un fond blanc ou bien, toujours comme fond, graduellement révélé par la déchirure, ou l\u2019écartement progressif du blanc, à ce moment interprété comme forme dissimulant le fond à nos yeux.etc.L\u2019ambiguïté est poussée plus loin lorsque forme/fond/partie blanche s\u2019éteint rapidement, créant ainsi une forme gris pale dont on ne sait si elle existe réellement ou si elle n\u2019est qu'une impression rétinienne qui persiste.Les deux films, en plus de montrer des formes en mouvement, sont aussi une analyse de la temporalité cinématographique, à l\u2019aide, par exemple, de la reprise mais inversée (spatialement) d\u2019une même suite d\u2019événements, sorte de variation sur un thème si l'on me permet cette comparaison musicale.Cependant, je n\u2019ai vu les films qu\u2019une fois, et ils demandent, pour être perçus sur ce plan, à être vus plusieurs fois.Vincent Grenier a insisté sur ce fait, d\u2019ailleurs Stan Brakhage a déjà dit de ses films qu\u2019ils ne pouvaient être bien vus qu\u2019une fois entièrement mémorisés.Parallèle avec la peinture.\u201cAil four films could be considered as four parts of the same one continuous work.It\u2019s like when a painter gets involved in solving certain problems and produces a series of interrelated canvases.\u201d (4) Bien qu\u2019ayant fait de la peinture, Vincent Grenier considère que son propos est purement cinématographique tout comme ses sources d\u2019influence d\u2019ailleurs.Sans nier la spécificité de son discours, on peut considérer que ses films traitent d\u2019une problématique semblable à celle de la peinture contemporaine.Je voudrais seulement esquisser dans quelle optique l\u2019on pourrait percevoir les deux démarches comme convergentes.Cette ressemblance peut s\u2019articuler en quatre points; la déconstruction de l\u2019espace illusionniste, l\u2019affirmation de la littéralité du support, l\u2019utilisation d\u2019une symbolique publique, conséquente d\u2019un discrédit de la symbolique personnelle et finalement le refus d\u2019inclure tout discours perçu comme extraartistique.Peu de temps après son invention le cinéma a attiré l'attention des peintres, Léger, Duchamp, Marinetti et même Malévitch.Or il se trouve que la peinture de cette époque est déjà engagée dans la crise de la représentation (s\u2019il y a un rapport de causalité entre les deux, il demeure peu clair et ne me paraît pas être une explication exhaustive de cette crise que nous vivons toujours) ainsi donc en même temps que naîtra le cinéma \u201ccommercial\u201d naîtra aussi le cinéma expérimental.Je ne veux pas reprendre l\u2019histoire du cinéma d'avant-garde, mais simplement relever le fait suivant: bien que tout le cinéma d\u2019avant-garde ne puisse pas être classé de cette façon, chaque mouvement pictural d\u2019importance a eu soit des cinéastes produisant un cinéma semblable, soit des théoriciens proposant un cinéma en conformité avec les canons esthétiques d\u2019un mouvement pictural particulier.Je ne crois pas que l\u2019art de ces dernières années fasse exception et je pense que Vincent Grenier offre une recherche cinématographique qui loin d\u2019être une simple illustration animée des mouvements picturaux des dix dernières années a en commun avec eux la même volonté de poursuivre une recherche sur les fondements de l\u2019expérience artistique par une réduction à l\u2019essentiel des composantes de cette expérience.\u201cJust consider that, unlike humans, cameras have Tiré de X, 1976 de Vincent Grenier mm wm only one view point.This means that the three dimensionality of images on film cannot be real but only suggested at.\u201d (5) La critique de l\u2019espace illusioniste semble avoir commencé avec le siècle et elle n\u2019a cessé de se radica-liser depuis.À la perspective traditionnelle s\u2019oppose, dans les années 50, l\u2019espace optique provoqué par le contraste des tons et des couleurs.Chez Rothko par exemple, les divers rectangles qui composent l\u2019image sont en relation ambiguë entre eux, il est difficile de dire lequel est placé en avant, lequel sert de fond.etc.C\u2019est un peu de cette manière que travaille Vincent Grenier dans X dont l\u2019ambiguïté \u201crelationnelle\u201d a déjà été décrite.Avec X cependant, la simplicité des moyens avec lesquels il rend ce jeu optique rappelle les Black Paintings de Ad Reinhardt qui fonctionnent au seuil du perceptible.L\u2019affirmation de la littéralité accompagne cette critique.Si, en peinture elle se traduit par l\u2019affirmation de la surface par l\u2019utilisation de formes faisant écho au cadre, pour le cinéma, il s\u2019agit de rendre le spectateur conscient de plusieurs choses à la fois.Je renvoie le lecteur à la première citation de Vincent Grenier (p.2) À la façon de l\u2019art minimal, LEVANT et X utilisent des formes que l\u2019on peut qualifier de symboles publics puisqu\u2019elles sont directement compréhensibles par le spectateur, comme les oeuvres de Stella, Judd et Morris.Les formes qu\u2019utilise Vincent Grenier ne sont pas porteuses de symbolique personnelle, il ne s\u2019agit pas pour lui de reprendre le schéma créateur de l\u2019expressionnisme abstrait et de faire des oeuvres \u201csignature\" mais plutôt de proposer une expérience esthétique accessible à tous, où le symbole laisse place au phénomène perçu (6).\u201cLes symboles sont des conventions inventées et utilisées par des gens de différentes civilisations du monde afin de se comprendre entre eux.Étant donné que ces symboles ont été créés à différents moments dans l\u2019histoire de l\u2019homme dans des buts et avec des données tout aussi différentes que contradictoires, il est évident que ceux-ci ne peuvent avoir qu\u2019une valeur de référence, et que tout art se légitimant uniquement sur le symbole ne peut être que du \u201ctoc\u201d.\u201d(7) Conséquemment avec l\u2019affirmation précédente, il ne peut être question pour Vincent Grenier d\u2019utiliser la structure narrative, aussi remaniée qu\u2019elle puisse être, ce problème rejoint celui de la crise de la représentation en peinture.¦ NOTES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUES 1.\tGRENIER, Vincent, feuillet expliquant ses films, non publié.Ce passage est à propos de LEVANT.2.\tLorsque j\u2019ai fait part de cette idée à V.Grenier, (en prenant comme exemple LIGHT SHAFT où un \u201cparallélépipède\u201d de lumière qui parcourt l\u2019écran en diagonale peut être perçu soit comme forme abstraite se promenant sur la surface ou bien, si le spectateur demeure conscient qu\u2019il s\u2019agit d\u2019un puits de lumière qui est filmé, être perçu comme provenant des mouvements de la caméra, allant, elle aussi, en diagonale par rapport à l\u2019axe de l\u2019écran.) celui-ci m\u2019a affirmé ne pas avoir travaillé avec cette idée.Tout le discours qui consisterait à faire sentir la présence de la caméra (disons plutôt à faire sentir la présence de celui qui tient la caméra) ou, plus globalement, la façon dont sont \u201cfabriquées\u201d ses images ne lui semble pas pertinent.Seul ce qui se passe sur l\u2019écran compte.Conséquent avec cette approche, il refuse d\u2019expliquer, après visionnement, le côté technique de ses films préférant laisser \u201cplaner le mystère\u201d.3.\tDans les moments où l\u2019écran est presque ou totalement blanc,les particules, poussières, saletés apparaissent.Bien que selon l'aveu de V.Grenier il s\u2019agit là de défauts techniques, l\u2019impression m\u2019est restée d\u2019avoir vu la pellicule se dérouler à toute vitesse.4.\tJonas Mekas, The Soho Weekly News, December 23, 1976, p.32 5.\tV.Grenier, Statement, non publié 6.\tVoir à ce sujet, Rosalind E.Krauss, Passages in Modem Sculptures, Viking Press, p.977, p.261.Symbole public est à mettre en parallèle avec la notion privée et langage public chez L.Wittgenstein.7.\tV.Grenier, non publie.36 LE CINÉMA QUÉBÉCOIS AU CARREFOUR An Oblique View by a Foreigner by Vlada Petrie At the present time, most of the small national cinemas find themselves in a serious economic and ideological crisis which is having considerable impact on their films.Canadian film, in particular, has been affected by this crisis due to its extraordinary interdependence on Hollywood production and the two-faceted aspect of its film industry \u2014 one, English-Canadian, and the other, québécois.Since this unique contradiction seems to be constantly present in Canadian cinema, I seized the rare opportunity to look at it closely at the month-long retrospective of Canadian films organized by the Conservatoire d\u2019Art Cinématographique of Concordia University during the XXI Olympiad in Montreal July-August 1976.Among the fifty full feature films shown during the retrospective, about thirty were produced by French-speaking Quebec filmmakers.Unquestionably, these films as a whole represented the best artistic achievements in the entire retrospective, revealing distinguished individual creative styles of filmmaking based on specific ideological and aesthetic attitudes.Yet the most important characteristic of the Quebec cinema was its awareness of the necessity to stand up against Hollywood convention as well as those commercial domestic movies which unscrupulously exploit film as mere entertainment.The ideo-aesthetic battle for national identity seems to be extremely crucial for the future of the \u201cCinéma québécois\u201d, manifesting itself on both ideological-political and artistic-aesthetic levels.However mechanical it may sound, one has to take into account the fact that one-quarter of twenty-three million Canadians speak French as their first language, constituting a cultural milieu almost as close to European French culture as to the English-American culture.More so, some eighty percent of Quebec's seven million people have French as their mother tongue, while many of them do not speak English at all.Hence, it seems natural that a national group like this tends to cement its own cultural identity and, within it, to develop a specific cinematic style which would fit the themes and problems characteristic of Quebec people.Historically, this tendency became more pronounced after the national movement which started about twenty years ago and culminated recently in the victory of the separatist Parti Québécois.Encouraged by the political situation, Quebec filmmakers increased their militancy, using cinema to promulgate their ideological views.This development brought different results: intensification of the political charge often without sufficient aesthetic impact, but also \u2014 and unfortunately less frequently \u2014 deepening of the cinematic values appropriate to the specific topics and characters.In an ideological sense, the situation in the contemporary Quebec cinema is reminiscent of the Soviet film during the 1920s with its innovative style (montage) which proved to be appropriate to the revolutionary enthusiasm of the October days.However, ideology and political aggressiveness were not enough; all the Soviet films which contained solely this stuff are now forgotten, and only those remain significant which demonstrated extraordinary cinematic expressiveness as the formal manifestation of the narrative content.This is obvious in many contemporary Quebec films with manifest political message but lacking sufficient cinematic energy to support the agitated plot.You have to be Eisenstein, Vertov, or Dovzhenko to justify artistically the propagandists fabric of scripts (or only synopses) like October, The Eleventh Year, and Arsenal.There is one additional similarity between the early Soviet and present Quebec cinemas: in both cases, the best artistic achievements were and still are unpopular among the general audience and therefore neglected by film distributors.In the light of these circumstances, I will concentrate on the artistic (i.e.cinematic) aspects of those Quebec films which brought international reputation to their makers as serious artists.My judgments are made according to the thirty selected works produced before 1976, all of them narrative feature films.The best Quebec feature films derive their style from the documentary tradition initiated by the Canadian government as early as 1939, when John Grierson founded the National Film Board in Ottawa.Perhaps an even more crucial moment was the establishment of separate English and French production units within the National Film Board when it was moved from Ottawa to Montreal in 1956.This realist attitude in Quebec cinema has been re-emphasized more recently by French cinéma-vérité style of shooting as well as by the \u201cdirect method\u201d of capturing reality, used by American documentarists.What seems even more important is the capacity of the Quebec filmmakers to apply these methods and styles to the narrative films based on prewritten scripts and realized with professional actors.Again, as in the Soviet films with \u201cnaturshchiks\u201d (non-professional actors), the performing side of Quebec cinema is unique in several ways.Acting is an important component of Quebec narrative films, since they often depict everyday characters in both intimate and social conflicts.Tendency toward realism and factography in presenting authentic types on the screen creates a paradoxical situation: the same group of actors can be seen in almost all the major French-language films.On the one hand, this reminds us of the Hollywood star-casting system, while, on the other, of television series in which the same types appear again and again in slightly different circumstances.This also creates an impression of watching a group of real people \u2014 citizens who live their lives in common situations, familiar faces that can be seen on the streets, markets, subways, pubs, and at sport events.The reason for this can be found in the limited choice of character actors, but it is obvious that Quebec directors, in order to preserve a high degree of realism on the screen, select their ac- tors according to the characterological features, just as Soviet directors chose theirs on the principle of typage (i.e.their facial expressiveness which had to \u201creveal\u201d the psychology of the type immediately).There is no question that most of Quebec actors are excellent interprètes with an extraordinary sense for delicate facial expression, natural manner of speaking, often in slang and local dialect.As such, they perfectly match the authentic environment in which they are placed, communicating their thoughts in a manner and language familiar to ordinary people.In this respect, the acting style or major Quebec films may be compared to the early Neo-Realist cinema in which great Italian actors proved capable of identifying their acting style with the low-key expressiveness of the non-actors.I emphasize this because such a naturalistic expressiveness cannot be found in most English-speaking Canadian films, and because this feature greatly helps Quebec directors to create environmental atmosphere.This simplicity in acting is, therefore, one of the chief qualities of Quebec films, which initially drew European attention to Canadian cinema in the early sixties (À tout prendre by Claude Jutra and Nobody Waved Good-Bye by Don Owen).Unfortunately, this quality has been almost entirely abandoned in English-speaking Canadian filmswhich, largely, succumbed to commercial entertainment, while in Quebec film acting has remained one of the most direct ways of presenting \u201clife as it is.\u201d Another element which contributes to the unique authenticity of Quebec narrative cinema is photography.Exterior shots are life-like to a degree that one can hardly be certain whether the events are randomly captured in reality or arranged in that manner before the camera.Vertov and Godard come to mind in this connection, but the important thing is that this strategy is used by many Quebec filmmakers.Films like On est loin du Soleil (Jacques Leduc 1970) combine footage of real people reacting in front of the camera, as well as professional actors performing their roles in a natural manner.The same authenticity is maintained in the films which deal with events entirely arranged before the camera, of course, in real locations, as in Montreal Main (Frank Vitale 1973) or Bar Salon (André Forcier 1972-3).For me as a foreigner, these two films functioned as cinematic documents of the Quebec métropole: the rhythm of Montreal\u2019s streets and pubs, the life style of its youth, a gallery of human types characteristic of Québécois and their everyday habits.All this is shown on the screen with great sense of what is known as ontological authenticity, i.e.the capacity of the motion picture image to create a feeling in the viewer that everything seen and heard on the screen existed as such in the moment of shooting.To enhance ontological authenticity, some Quebec filmmakers employ lip-sync interviews in the style of Chris Marker and Godard who ask both actors and real people to relate to the camera in the process of shooting, thus destroying narrative continuity in order to intensify the authenticity of the reaction as it really occurred in front of the camera.Following this method, Le Soleil a pas 37 d\u2019chance (Robert Favreau 1974) discloses the \u201chidden side\u201d of the glamorous selection of \u201cduchesses\u201d for Quebec\u2019s annual winter carnival.Similarly, Le Chat dans le sac (Gilles Groulx 1964) employs the Godar-dian method of seif-referential style of shooting the actors as well as ordinary people who constantly relate to the camera as to the third person, or the filmmaker who interferes with the narrative.On the political level, both films appeared to be very controversial because of their open and critical attitude toward ongoing and pressing problems existing in Quebec society.But from a historical perspective, these two films are important as cinematic achievements, though the subjects could easily lead their filmmakers to yield to an artistic compromise and please popular taste.The matter of popularity, as we shall see later, is the key problem in the present development of Quebec cinema.Quebec cinematographers, indeed, developed a unique style of shooting which preserves ontological authenticity in texture and laboratory execution of the photography.At the same time, their image is sophisticated in pictorial composition, lighting, and camera movement (often hand-held).While the ontological authenticity of Quebec motion pictures derives from the European documentary tradition, the pictorial sophistication comes from American practice.This unusual combination of authenticity and pic-torialism characterizes the works of Claude Jutra, especially his early films such as À tout prendre.Following this stylistic feature, Jutra reached the peak of his mastery by mixing fantasy with realism in Mon oncle Antoine (1970) which remains the most beautiful and most significant among all Canadian films, English and French.In retrospect, Mon oncle Antoine proved that real works of art do not lose their impact as they age.Flowever, this film was and still is unpopular among the broad Canadian audience, a fact which stimulated many Quebec filmmakers, Jutra among them, to seek resolution in artistic compromise.Contradiction between entertainment and art in Canadian cinema is enforced by the cultural attitudes of the mass audience accustomed to the Flollywood type of movie entertainment which has dominated Canada\u2019s film market for decades.Quebec cinema suffers from this contradiction even more by virtue of the fact that it is, by and large, concerned with socio-political topics which general audiences prefer to avoid.With historical and cultural ties close to the United States, Canada was and still is one of the ideal spots where Flollywood can sell its products and also mine material for its movies.Flollywood treats the Canadian environment as other exotic places, using Canadian history as a mere pretext for slick spectacles.In his recent book, Hollywood's Canada (1975), Pierre Berton states that this \u201cCecil B.de Mille version of Canadian history had blurred our national identity to the point where we didn't seem to have any.\u201d Indeed, in Flollywood presentations, Canadian landscape and the people in it appear to be as trivial as oriental decor and Sahara sand dunes built around Flollywood studios.This peculiar situation is further aggravated by the financial interests which tie Canadian and American distributors.As a result, the creative aspirations of contemporary Quebec filmmakers are halted in their efforts to produce serious films with topics of deep human and social significance.Therefore, any attempt toward serious film is important and has to be supported even if the final result is not superior.For, without such insistence and dedication, all Canadian films would be nothing but imitation of Flollywood, or to put it baldly, the only difference between Canadian and American cinema would be that the former products would be worse and less popular than the latter.In practice, the most \u201csuccessful\u201d Canadian commercial movies which imitate Flollywood cliches end up being insignificant both artistically and commercially.This has been proved over and over again.Even the most intensively advertised \u201cCanadian\u201d films like The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz (Ted Kotcheff 1973) and Lies My Father Told Me (Jan Kadar 1974) failed to become box-office hits: after four years of exploitation and promotion by American companies who participated in their making and distribution, both films are still at the bottom on the commercial list of entertainment movies shown in Canadian showcase theaters.Flollywood leads here as everywhere else.What, then, is the purpose of making such films which neither bring money nor mean anything in cultural-artistic sense?Flasn\u2019t it become clear that Canadian entertainment movies cannot, in any way, compete with Flollywood?Conversely, isn\u2019t it more appropriate for Canadian national cinema to support those talents which feel that cinema is art, equivalent to any other artistic medium of expression, a great aesthetic tool capable of raising the cinematic sensitivity of the audience, especially younger filmgoers?As I said in the beginning of this article, there is nothing new and strange in this fact: it has been observed in many small national cinemas, although little has been done to change or improve the situation.Many do not want even to admit that commercialism is killing film as an art form, and that commercial production has to be dealt with apart from the films which belong to art.In this context, it is extremely important to recognize the artistic attitudes of those Quebec filmmakers who use the medium to express their personal aesthetic concepts and respond to the social problems of the nation.Bearing in mind the circumstances in which they work, it is necessary to give them every support, which at the same time does not exclude criticism aimed at strengthening their artistic position.At this point I have to be more specific.But, instead of making a chronological survey of Quebec artists and their works, I will only mention briefly those films which draw my attention to both their topics and their form during the retrospective.After that I will concentrate on two films which I find crucial for making my point.The films that impressed me most at the retrospective as works that face up to the real social contradictions and, at the same time cinematically present those problems on the screen were La Vraie nature de Bernadette (Gilles Carle 1971), Ftéjane Padovanni (Denis Arcand 1972), Tu Brûles.tu brûles.(Jean-Guy Noël 1972), Tendresse ordinaire (Jacques Leduc 1973), Bingo (Jean-Claude Lord 1973), and Les Ordres (Michel Brault 1973).Above all these I would put Les dernières fiançailles (Jean-Pierre Lefebvre 1973) for reasons explained later in this article.Some of these films are preoccupied with the ideological message which their authors want to impart, others are more involved in finding cinematic devices which would make the content more impressive.But all of them reveal both ideological concern and cinematic sensitivity on the part of their authors.Needless to say, the best are those films which combine the contextual substance with the appropriate cinematic form like La Vraie nature de Bernadette, Tendresse ordinaire, and most of all Les dernières fiançailles.By coincidence, I saw Les dernières fiançailles immediately after another Quebec feature film Kamouraska (Claude Jutra 1972).The comparison between these two films was, for me, irresistible in every respect.I began to think what there was that involved me so much in Lefebvre\u2019s love story between the two old people, and why I resisted so much Jutra\u2019s love story between the young couple?Soon I realised that these two films represent perfect examples of the two divergent tendencies existing in the contemporary Quebec cinema: one leading toward commercialism as a desperate attempt to compete with Hollywood, another to establish a unique cinematic style that will stimulate film as art in both Quebec and Canada within the socio-ideological context of the country.It is surprising and disapointing that the most out- Kamouraska, de Claude Jutra, 1972.A love story with melodramatic conflict and pompous visual execution.standing representative among Quebec filmmakers, Claude Jutra, is abandoning the stylistic features which not only characterized his early work, but considerably stimulated other directors to develop what can be considered Quebec cinematic style.Obviously, in Kamouraska Jutra made total compromise in imitating Hollywood clichés.This very fact is painful and disturbing.Painful for the lovers of film art to see a talented filmmaker betraying his own aesthetic ideals; disturbing for the younger filmmakers who need their more experienced and reputable colleagues to fight with them for the autonomy of this medium.In the historical context, Kamouraska is a \u201cperiod spectacle\u201d without real historical perspective in treating a subject placed in specific social circumstances.Even less does it penetrate into the intimate psychological aspects of the characters.Based on the best selling novel written by Anne Hébert, Kamouraska, as a film, preserves all the conventional ingredients of a heart-breaking love tragedy, wrapped in glamorous images with trivial or very little meaning.One has to admit, however, that from a technical viewpoint Kamouraska is an effective film replete with visual effects: it uses enlarged screen scale, best color photography, fascinating camera travelings, massive mise en scène with lots of extras, dazzling optical tricks of numerous dissolves and flash-backs, a popular film star (Geneviève Bujold), picturesque decor (mid-nineteenth century Canada), embellished costumes, lovable music (both symphonic and country style), flamboyant folk songs and dances culminating in the spectacular chases over white Canadian champs.What else can be added to the technical perfection of a film?And yet, in spite of all its fanciful effects, Kamouraska has not become an international commercial success, as it was intended to be, let alone a significant work of art.The reason is obvious: the spectators in other countries who like such movies prefer to be entertained by a \u201cgenuine\u201d Hollywood melodrama, be it a sequel to Gone With the Wind or remake of a Victorian novel.Judged as a screen adaptation of a novel, Jutra\u2019s Kamouraska remains on the level of a mechanical illustration of the literary weeknesses which characterize the original whose frivolous style is typified in the following passage: Dans l\u2019anse de Kamouraska gelée comme un champ sec et poudreux.L\u2019amour meurtrier.L\u2019amour infâme.L\u2019amour funeste.Amour.Amour.Unique vie de ce monde.La folie de l\u2019amour.Je vous en prie dites-moi, l'état de votre santé et celle du pauvre petit enfant.(p.11) The entire book is written in this ecstatic manner.Tou- 38 Les dernières fiançailles, de Jean-Pierre Lefebvre, 1973 A love story with profound \u2014 and cinematic \u2014 concern for intimate human relationship.jours l\u2019amour et les armes! The last sentence of the novel can be quoted as the trade mark of Mile Hébert's prose: \u201cVoyez donc comme Madame aime Monsieur! Voyez comme elle pleure.\u201d Sighs and whimpering can be found on every page of this book, and Jutra used all his craftmenship to preserve the melodramatic aspects of the novel, instigating the audience to cry without thinking about the psychology of the characters.The melodramatic side of the plot is emphasized in the film by repetitive use of the flashbacks without sufficient narrative significance.Glamorous images alternate on the screen, pile one over another, while their dramatic function remains merely illustrative and decorative.This slick picture of \u201cOld Canada\u201d is presented in a typical Hollywood manner: a story of passion, tears, murder, betrayal, cunning and \u2014 above all \u2014 leisure.Even on the level of entertainment, Kamouraska is a boring, pompous and ostentatious photo-play deprived of real life and truly cinematic rendition of human characters, atmosphere and milieu.It is a film that skilfully \u2014 and therefore dangerously \u2014 works against the trend which tries to make Quebec cinema autonomous and artistically relevant.The Last Engagement, as Lefebvre\u2019s film is titled in English, is the opposite of Kamouraska in both contextual and a cinematic sense.Shot in 16 mm color for only forty-three thousand dollars, located in and around a small country house, this typical \u201cKammer-spielefilm\u201d with its concentration on human psyche, depicts the last few days of an old couple living a simple life, waiting and praying to die together in their modest home.Obviously, Lefebvre felt deep compassion for his characters, and succeeded to find a proper cinematic style to develop, both visually and auditorily, a story about the spiritual link between two old people becoming childlike and, through that rejuvenation, again naively pure.All the components of Lefebvre\u2019s film contribute to the film's subject and at the same time express the filmmaker\u2019s personal attitude.The constant use of \u201cstaring\u201d point of view, interchanged with camera trajectories in a limited space bring to our attention many apparently insignificant details and profane events occuring in Rose\u2019s and Ar-mand\u2019s little world.Like an invisible spirit, the camera investigates the various objects, resting deliberately on intimate details and connecting one character\u2019s subtle reaction with another\u2019s.The camera in The Last Engagement is an omnipotent eye which helps us to penetrate below the visible appearance of reality, its function is similar to the ingenious principle developed by Robert Bresson in his earlier works, and described by Alexander Astruc as \u201cla camera stylo\u201d.In that sense, The Last Engagement is a Bressonian film: the inside becomes visible throught the outside.Of course, Lefebvre applies the \u201ccamera stylo\u201d method in his own way: while Bresson uses his camera \u201cas a pen\u201d to depict exterior behaviour of his characters without stimulating their emotional reactions, in order to achieve certain degree of \u201cdistancing\u201d in the viewer\u2019s identification with the events shown on the screen, Lefebvre, on the contrary, explores with his camera the environment, objects and characters with a clear intention to enhance the viewer\u2019s identification with the protagonists.For Lefebvre, objects have the same significance on the screen as human faces, but objects reach that importance only through an interaction with human beings.Just as Carl Dreyer did it in his The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) using the gliding camera to record every change on the actors/actresses faces and their relation to the objects.Searching for the revealing moments in everyday life, Lefebvre\u2019s and Guy Dufaux\u2019s camera becomes a real participant of the intimate drama presented on the screen, as such it assumes the function of an \u201cexplorateur des âmes humaines\u201d (Dreyer\u2019s term).Thus the limited environment in which the events take place becomes a micro-world of great interior turmoil : the slightest movement of the actor\u2019s and actresses\u2019 bodies or a barely visible reaction appearing for only an instant on the human faces is related to the objects that illuminate other events in previous and forthcoming sequences.Identifying with the camera movements and the director\u2019s point of view, the audience perceives space through sensorimotor experience, thus becoming, almost physically, part of the world in which the protagonists exist.Thematically, The Last Engagement means certain divergence from Lefebvre\u2019s earlier work.Some Quebec film reviewers have expressed surprise and doubts about its \u201cevident respect for tradition\u201d, ignoring the fact that progress can be achieved by the quiet revolution, as well, especially when it is known that Lefebvre\u2019s first feature, made in the winter of 1964-65, was called Le révolutionnaire\u201d (D.John Turner, in Journal of the University Film Association, no.3 1975, p.70).However, John Turner admits that Lefebvre\u2019s film being \u201cslow and mesmeric, achieves human behaviour\u201d with an overhelming emotional effect, hence, Les dernières fiançailles \u201cmust be recognized as a thoroughly mature work announcing Lefebvre\u2019s arrival as a consumate film artist.\u201d I fully agree with Turner\u2019s statement, and thus less can I understand John Hofsess\u2019 opinion about Kamouraska which he finds \u201ca significant film which alters the images that Canadians have had of themselves \u2014 story of passions, murder, betrayal, and cunning \u2014 and the image that others have of us\u201d (Inner View, 1975, p.45).To me, the opposite is true: the picture of Canadians in Kamouraska \u2014 both in the book and on the screen \u2014 is full of passion, murder, betrayal, cunning and other hair-raising emotions, all of them dressed in fanciful attires to fascinate bourgeois mentality.If this is the \u201caltered image\u201d of Canadians as they prefer to see themselves, then they can identify with even more phony images about themselves offered to them in Hollywood movies.What is the goal of producing imitative movies like Kamouraska, when there are enough energy and originality in Jutra himself to follow the trend so brilliantly exposed in Les dernières fiançailles?In human terms, Lefebvre\u2019s film has a profound meaning which cannot be studied without relating it to the social background.His first film, indeed, had a clear political implication, while here the focus is placed on the philosophical, rather existential concern of Canadians within their own consciousness.Rose and Armand are certainly spiritual and emotional parents (or grandparents) of the youngsters shown in The Revolutionary.Capable of understanding any gesture or intention coming from a sincere heart, the Tremblay couple in Lefebvre\u2019s film promotes the great ideals which have always served as a basis for human progress, including \u201cthe quiet revolution.\u201d The fact that these old people cannot get rid of their traditional beliefs, testifies to the fact that cultural heritage has a deep and crucial socio-psychological impact on the people with consequences that cannot be eliminated overnight.Hence, the old couple in Les dernières fiançailles is both a product of specific Canadian historical evolution and a universal symbol of any man and woman approaching death.Contrary to this, the participants of the wild love triangle in Kamouraska proves to be direct descendent of Hollywood melodramatic heroes and heroines armed with all the conventions of the \u201cB\u201d movies.With such characterological features, Elisabeth Rolland and her maniacal husband obsessed by their immature egos, spread destruction around themselves, a destruction which is raised to a pedestal without any concern for its sources.Psychologically, then, Kamouraska is close relative of Duddy Kravitz: both pretend to be wealthy and powerful.At least such was the intention of their producers and directors, especially In the case of The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz which, as I said, was hailed by many Canadian and American critics as an \u201cimportant break\u2019through\u201d for Canadian cinema.However, its ostensible success (the film cost $910,000.to make, but has grossed only four million in the United States and Canada, which is not enough to bring any profit) is tragic for Canadian cinema because it gives a false impression that this is the direction which young Canadian filmmakers have to follow.Nothing can be more misleading than this, since Canadian cinema, if it wants to constitute its artistic identity within the world cinema, must explore an entirely different course.John Hofsess tried to define \u201cwhat Canadian movies really mean,\u201d and what they have to be.His definition rightly supports films like Les dernières fiançailles, and not Kamouraska, (which he likes), i.e., those directors and films \u201cthat are bound to be discussed, for these are the dreamers of independent mind and unique vision who said \u2018No\u2019 to American mass culture\u201d (p.36).Evidently, Hofsess\u2019 admiration of Kamouraska does not go along with his general statement about the future development of Canadian and Quebec cinema.Quebec filmmakers, in spite of all difficulties, were courageous to say \u201cNo\u201d to the Hollywood dream factory.These difficulties,unfortunately,will become even more numerous in the future.For geographical, and psychological conditions place Canadian filmmakers in a difficult position.Quebec filmmakers would be naive to believe that their specific cultural situation makes these difficulties less detrimental for Quebec cinema.Economic power in the Capitalist world is above the cultural structure.Therefore they ought not to hope that separatism would help them in creating genuine cinematic style.On the contrary, they have to do their best to influence and encourage other Canadian filmmakers in defending their own ideas about cinema and in resisting Hollywood cliches.As the things stand now, Quebec filmmakers are reminiscent of David fighting Goliath.Their courage is fascinating, because they accept this uneven encounter with the endurance of the mythical hero, and without thinking of their personal difficult situation.They do it with self-sacrifice and patience that only true artists can draw from their creative individualities.It is important to notice that in narrative cinema this sacrifice is more critical than in the non-narrative films which do not compete with current commercial production nor do they depend on the production codes.The reality of the contemporary Canadian as well as Quebec film industry is such that their filmmakers have to chose between the two poles: cinema as art and cinema as trivial entertainment.I emphasize trivial, because this is the type of entertainment that pleases mass audiences the most.In this context, the achievements of those Quebec filmmakers who pursue film as art are extremely significant and exemplary.They have to be supported in order to grow and to be followed.¦ Vlada Petrie Luce Professor of Film Studies Harvard University 39 Rameau's Nephew by Diderot (Thanx to Dennis Young) by Wilma Schoen Photo Galerie nationale du Canada.RAMEAU\u2019S NEPHEW BY DIDEROT BY MENTAI ment A MENT Al mentai MENT A! MENTAI de Michael Snow: par Pierre Théberge \u201cI started scripting this film in February 1972 and writing, shooting, mixing, editing continued till September \u201974.Some ideas used in it date from 1966 when I recognized in myself the ambition to make an authentic TALKING PICTURE i.e., true to its description, it moves for its \u2018content\u2019 from the facts of the simultaneities of recorded speech and image; it is built from the true units of a \u2018talking picture\u2019 \u2014 the syllable and the frame.All the possible image-sound relationships centering around people and speech generate the movie \u2014 audience relationships: a wide range of emotional possibilities; the experience of seeing/hearing this film.\u201c \u2018Speech\u2019, \u2018Language\u2019, \u2018Culture\u2019 \u2014 their sources, their nature.recorded, imaged, prove (?) that in this case a word is worth 1000 pictures.\u201d (Michael Snow). INTRODUCTION Le déroulement temporel du film de Michael Snow Rameau\u2019s Nephew by Diderot (Thanx to Dennis Young) by Wilma Schoen est aussi peu dramatique que le déroulement mécanique de ses six bobines dans le projecteur d'une salle de cinéma.Chaque image et chaque son des 17 minutes des six parties de son introduction, comme d\u2019ailleurs tout le film, se présentent comme ayant été délibérément choisis et analysés avant d\u2019être insérés dans la chaîne des événements visuels et sonores.Même si New York Eye and Ear Control est l\u2019ancêtre le plus direct de Rameau\u2019s Nephew.dans ses rapports entre le son et l\u2019image,12\u2019 c\u2019est plutôt à Dripping Water fait par Snow en 1969 avec la collaboration de Joyce Wieland que nous faisons ici appel pour tenter d\u2019en décrire le déroulement.Dripping Water présentait en un seul plan l\u2019image en noir et blanc d\u2019un bol rempli d\u2019eau dans lequel tom- 40 I0î (THANX TO DENNIS YOUNG) Bï WILMA SCHOEN l\u2019introduction baient régulièrement des gouttes d\u2019eau.La trame sonore, non synchronisée à l'image, représentait le son de chaque goutte frappant la surface de l\u2019eau du bol.Le son et l\u2019image se conjuguaient seulement dans l\u2019esprit du spectateur.Seule visible par l\u2019ombre de sa chute, chaque goutte ne devenait réellement perceptible que dans la présence des cercles excentriques se dessinant par intermittence sur la surface de l\u2019eau du bol et s\u2019y accumulant pour le faire déborder.Les images et les sons de Rameau\u2019s Nephew.existent aussi dans une absence totale de progression dramatique: il n\u2019y a plus de zoom de la pensée (Wavelength), plus de va et vient dialectique, (), plus de spirales de l\u2019imagination (La Région Centrale).Seul existe l\u2019inexorable déroulement des images et des sons qui, peu à peu, un instant après l\u2019autre, font vibrer de façon de plus en plus intense, l\u2019esprit du spectateur.Plusieurs oeuvres cinématographiques antérieures de Snow avaient été construites à partir d\u2019un objet central qui était à la fois la source de \u201cl\u2019action\u201d et son point de convergence.Dans celles-ci, l\u2019image projetée sur l\u2019écran renvoyait essentiellement à la caméra et à sa lentille mouvante dans Wavelength, à sa tête articulée sur son trépied dans , ou à la machine omnidirec-tionnelle lui servant de support invisible mais perceptible dans ses effets dans La Région Centrale.Le spectateur pouvait s\u2019identifier à cette caméra et assumer, pensant et réfléchissant bien sûr, l\u2019expérience antérieure de l\u2019automate.Dans Rameau\u2019s Nephew.la caméra n\u2019est évidemment pas absente car sans elle, et sans pellicule, bien sûr pas d\u2019oeuvre.Elle n\u2019occupe cependant pas plus de place dans l\u2019ordre des événements qui s\u2019y déroulent que tous les autres éléments objectifs de l\u2019ensemble de la mise en scène du film qui y sont visibles: la pellicule et sa couleur, le système d\u2019enregistrement Rameau\u2019s Nephew by Diderot (Thanx to Dennis Young) by Wilma Schoen Photo Galerie Nationale du Canada. sonore, l\u2019éclairage, les décors, les costumes, les acteurs, leur jeu, leurs accents, leurs voix et leurs dialogues, précédant tous le développement du film et son montage visuel et sonore, et enfin sa projection.Tous ces phénomènes demandent le même degré d\u2019attention au spectateur qu\u2019ils peuvent souvent assaillir simultanément! La perception de Rameau\u2019s Nephew by Diderot (Thanx to Dennis Young) by Wilma Schoen est pour d\u2019aucuns fort épuisante et ce n\u2019est pas seulement parce que le film dure à peu près quatre heures trente minutes.Ce film exige du spectateur devenu le centre de l\u2019action un degré d\u2019attention extrême pour ordonner dans son esprit les effets conjugués de cette foule d\u2019activités intensément cinématographiques.Le spectateur n\u2019y a plus la caméra-écran comme objet auquel s\u2019identifier, derrière-devant lequel secacherdans l\u2019obscurité de la salle.Tout s\u2019y éclaire: celui-ci est seul, sans camouflage.L\u2019expérience est directe, c\u2019est sa pensée qui est en cause, c\u2019est elle que Snow cherche à modeler: \u201cOne presumes a lot if one presumes that one can direct another consciousness into varying states of attentiveness.I could say that I mean not only the intensity of the attention but its nature and forms.I do presume I can do that and that I do it to myself.Impossible subject, I can never be objective.I tend to believe, because of occasional exterior manifestations, that many of the states of mind I experience experiencing my work are frequently enough experienced by others.\u201d|3) Les 17 premières minutes qui constituent l\u2019introduction du film sont l\u2019amorce de ces débordements de la pensée auxquels il nous convie.Voyons concrètement comment ceux-ci sont amorcés.LE RÉCIT Écrit entre 1761 et 1776, le récit, la \u201csatire\u201d de Diderot, Le Neveu de Rameau, a eu le curieux sort d\u2019avoir d\u2019abord été connu non pas dans sa langue originale mais en allemand dans une traduction de Goethe parue en 1805.Ce n\u2019est qu\u2019en 1821 qu\u2019une traduction française de ce texte allemand fut publiée, la version originale ayant disparu.Ce n\u2019est qu\u2019après plusieurs versions d\u2019après des copies douteuses qu\u2019une version définitive put être finalement établie en 1891, d\u2019après une copie de la main de Diderot retrouvée tout à fait par hasard.141 En tant que \u201ctraduction\u201d du récit à partir d\u2019une traduction anglaise de l\u2019original, le film de Michael Snow, Rameau\u2019s Nephew by Diderot (Thanx to Dennis Young) by Wilma Schoen, s\u2019insère ironiquement en continuité avec sa première manifestation dans une existence autre que celle que l\u2019auteur avait originalement inventée.Le phénomène de la traduction en tant qu\u2019inévitable interprétation, transformation ou trahison d\u2019un \u201coriginal\u201d fait partie du langage plastique de Snow depuis longtemps.Par exemple, les centaines de manifestations des Walking Women avaient été, de 1961 à 1967, autant de traductions d\u2019une seule forme.L\u2019usage qu\u2019il fait maintenant de la photographie ou du cinéma lui permet toutes sortes de traductions et de réductions du réel.Snow a même \u201ctraduit\u201d ses propres oeuvres en filmant et commentant dans Side Seat Paintings Slides Sound Film 1970 des diapositives qui étaient déjà des déformations de ses tableaux originaux.En 1977, encore, il traduisait dans son propre langage et au moyen de la caméra, des tableaux du Groupe des Sept dans les 25 parties de \u201cPlus Tard\u2019\u2019.LE TITRE En général les titres des oeuvres de Snow décrivent, résument ou traduisent le contenu de celles-ci, processus que l\u2019idéogramme du film démontre de la façon la plus extrême.Le titre Rameau\u2019s Nephew by Diderot (Thanx to Dennis Young) by Wilma Schoen n\u2019échappe pas à cette règle.Il est presque uniquement composé de noms de personnages réels ou fictifs qui sont les premiers d\u2019une longue série que le générique du film complétera.La juxtaposition de noms de personnes appartenant à l\u2019Histoire et de noms de personnages fictifs annonce le côtoiement incessant de la \u201cfiction\u201d et du \u201cdocument réel\u201d et leurs métamorphoses mutuelles dans le film, comme c\u2019était le cas dans le récit de Diderot.Qui sont les personnages énumérés dans le titre?Rameau\u2019s c'est évidemment Jean-Philipe Rameau, le grand musicien français dont on entendra même la musique au cours du film.Nephew, c\u2019est Jean-François, son neveu, qui est le premier personnage du titre à avoir cette double existence, réelle et fictive: il fut musicien et fut aussi, en tant que \u201cNeveu\u201d, le personnage fictif (?) créé par Diderot, l\u2019écrivain français réel dont le nom apparaît en troisième ordre.Les noms Dennis Young (Dennis comme Denis Diderot?) correspondent à un personnage dont la nature de l\u2019existence, réelle ou fictive, n\u2019est pas révélée dans le titre.Qu\u2019il s\u2019agisse du professeur habitant à Halifax, et du conservateur qui avait organisé la rétrospective Michael Snow/A Survey à l\u2019Art Gallery of Ontario à Toronto en 1970 n\u2019est établi que lorsqu\u2019on le voit tirer la langue au spectateur dans un \u201cpost scrip-turn\u201d ajouté récemment par Snow à son film.Même là, il n\u2019est pas identifié comme étant \u201cDennis Young\u201d sauf pour ceux qui savent à qui il ressemble! L\u2019importance de sa présence précédée de ces \u201cthanx to\u201d dans le titre est due au fait qu\u2019il signala à Snow, au cours d\u2019une conversation, l\u2019existence du récit de Diderot.Tous ces noms propres ont en commun d\u2019appartenir à des auteurs de quelque chose.Même le Neveu est identifié comme l\u2019auteur de ses propres propos bien qu\u2019ils proviennent \u201créellement\u201d de Diderot.Le dialogue se déroule entre \u201clui\u201d et \u201cmoi\u201d et non pas entre \u201cle neveu\u201d et \u201cl\u2019auteur\u201d, ce qui permet théoriquement l\u2019existence simultanée d\u2019une troisième conscience, celle de l\u2019auteur ayant créé ce \u201clui\u201d et ce \u201cmoi\u201d, à laquelle le lecteur peut s\u2019identifier.Le Neveu imite aussi, comme un comédien, les douzaines de personnes qu\u2019il décrit.Comme lui, elles ont eu une existence réelle hors de la fiction du récit, comme à leur tour les douzaines de personnes qui jouent dans le film les rôles que Snow leur a assignés.Le sixième et dernier personnage du titre, Wilma Schoen, a lui aussi une double existence: fictive (?) dans ce titre et réelle comme anagramme, traduction, du nom de l\u2019auteur du titre et du film.Wilma est le seul personnage du titre qui n\u2019ait probablement pas eu d\u2019existence historique indépendante de celle que lui confère le film.Il pourrait exister ou avoir existé, peut-être dans l\u2019Allemagne de Goethe, une ou plusieurs personnes du nom de Wilma Shoen.Si l\u2019une d\u2019elles était l\u2019auteur du film, ou des neufs premiers mots du titre, les mots \u201cMichael Snow\u201d n\u2019en seraient qu\u2019un anagramme! Le générique offrira bien d\u2019autres hypothèses sur la réalité ou la fiction de \u201cMichael Snow\u201d dans les variations sur l\u2019ordre des lettres de son nom.Qui est la duchampienne Wilma Schoen?C\u2019est Will-Machine, la volonté créatrice transformée par une machine, la caméra ou le projecteur; c\u2019est Wilma Shone, celle qui brilla comme une idée, une ampoule de projection ou un écran; Schoen c\u2019est l\u2019anagramme aussi du mot allemant Schdne, qui se traduit en français par \u201cbeauté\u201d, concept longtemps relié à l\u2019oeuvre d\u2019art.)5< L\u2019existence sonore du titre (et du film) est signalée par le \u201cX\u201d de Thanx qui représente, traduit le son du KS qu\u2019il remplace.La nature des \u201c(\u201c et \u201d)\u201d en tant que signaux descriptifs d\u2019une fonction, est analogue ici à celle du o; ils signalent à l\u2019esprit bien sûr l\u2019existence de la parenthèse, l\u2019équivalent grammatical du montage.Ce titre, dans la juxtaposition des noms propres, représente le film, construit lui aussi par la juxtaposition d\u2019un élément après un autre, hors de toute structure narrative traditionnelle.Chaque partie ou \u201cchapitre\u201d du film, comme les mots du titre, est virtuellement autonome et existe dans des rapports de stricte égalité vis-à-vis des autres parties.LA CITATION \u201cIn my films, I hope to modulate the spectators\u2019s consciousness by composing with varying emphasis on the nature of the sound in relation to various means of indicating the fictional source of the sound within the range of image possibilities (from abstract pure color-light to \u201crealistic\u201d representation.\u201cRameau\u2019s Nephew by Diderot (Thanx to Dennis Young) by Wilma Schoen\u201d made in 73-74 is the most radical of these image-sound compositions and most closely related to this.\u201d.161 Le film commence de façon si abrupte qu\u2019on a l\u2019impression d\u2019être soi-même projeté dans un monde déjà bien en mouvement.Cette toute première séquence est un véritable pro-logue didactique, une séquence sonore mais non verbale, qui précède tout usage du langage verbal.L\u2019action s'y déroule ainsi: apparaît sur un fond rouge, le buste d\u2019un homme non identifié vêtu d\u2019une chemise bleue.Seuls ceux qui savent à qui ce tout premier personnage ressemble, qui (comme Dennis Young) il représente et interprète, sifflant dans le noir (W in the D) de la salle, reconnaissent comme Michael Snow, l\u2019auteur présumé du film.Il est filmé d\u2019abord de face, puis de profil gauche, puis de dos, et on l\u2019entend siffler dans un microphone qu\u2019il avance et recule de ses lèvres.Mike Mike Show Mike Snow Mike Sounds on the Mike Snophone?Le siffleur, le microphone et l\u2019air ambiant sont combinés pour produire le son que l\u2019on entend par l\u2019entremise du haut-parleur de la salle.Les sons qu\u2019il émet en sifflant d\u2019abord face à la caméra sont visiblement modifiés par la force de son souffle, par la forme de ses lèvres et par la distance à celles-ci du microphone enregistreur.Le siffleur mesure de ses gestes l\u2019espace réel qu\u2019il occupe devant la lentille de la caméra et sa distance à celle-ci.Il établit visuellement aussi qu\u2019il existe (existera) en tant qu\u2019imagé à la fois sur l\u2019écran et à une certaine distance, fictive, derrière sa surface.Le siffleur mesure en même temps la distance de façon sonore car les sons s\u2019élèvent à mesure que le microphone se rapproche de ses lèvres, et s\u2019abaisse quand il s\u2019en éloigne jusqu\u2019à sortir du plan.Il s\u2019agit pour l\u2019auteur d\u2019établir une convention réaliste, car rien ne garantit que le siffleur ne triche pas en modifiant la force de son souffle en même temps que la distance entre le microphone et la lentille; un ingénieur du son aurait pu tout autant manipuler le volume de l\u2019enregistrement et les sons auraient pu avoir été pré, ou post-synchronisés.(7> En second lieu, le siffleur, présenté de profil gauche par montage, démontre le caractère bi-dimensionnel de l\u2019écran en étendant son bras vers la limite gauche du champ de la caméra, donc de l\u2019écran.En troisième lieu, par montage toujours, le siffleur est vu de dos et ce que nous entendons est presque entièrement basé sur la vraisemblance.Nous ne le voyons pas siffler mais nous voyons d\u2019abord l\u2019ombre du microphone projetée sur le fond rouge avant de le voir à gauche de l\u2019écran.Nous entendons des sifflements et nous avons lieu de croire qu\u2019il fait les mêmes gestes avec le microphone que dans les deux séquences précédentes mais seule la mémoire nous garantit vraiment cette croyance.Nous sommes ici dans le domaine de la fiction.Se succédant parfois en saccades, les sifflements sont analogues aux images mêmes du film qui déroule dans le projecteur 24 fois par seconde.Comme le film dans sa caméra et son projecteur, ils sont introduits dans une machine, le microphone qui est le premier maillon de la chaîne de transmission des sons éventuellement amplifiés et retransmis par haut-parleur dans la salle de projection.42 Le va et vient (o) de l\u2019inspiration et de l\u2019expiration sonore du siffleur est une citation des phrases sifflées de W in the D (créé en 1970 et publié dans le disque Michael Snow Musics.) où Snow avait réussi à représenter l\u2019espace de façon non visuelle en faisant percevoir à l\u2019auditeur idéalement situé dans le noir la distance entre le microphone et ses lèvres. î-V X, %* ¦v * PARACHUTE, revue d\u2019art contemporain présente le premier volume des éditions PARACHUTE «, -% NEW YORK, N.Y.?editions PARACHUTE Pierre Boogaerts: New York, N.Y format: 7\u201d x 10\u201d - 17.8 x 25.5 cm 208 pages, noir/blanc Tirage de 500 exemplaires numérotés de 1 à 500 et répartis comme suit: 10 exemplaires, numérotés de 1 à 10 contenant une série supplémentaire de quatre photographies originales signées; 50 exemplaires signés et numérotés de 11 à 60; 440 exemplaires numérotés de 61 à 500.Disponible aux éditions PARACHUTE, C.P.730, succursale N, Montréal, Canada, H2X 3N4 au prix de $15.00 (plus frais postaux). G.LANZI Come to Bologna and meet the most qualified exponents of the contemporary art scene: 210 exhibitors from 80 cities and 20 countries Bologna 1-6 June 1978 Hours: week days, 4.00 p.m.11.00 p.m.Sunday 4th June 11.00 a.m.11.00 p.m.INTERNATIONAL FAIR OF TEM-ARY ART r NA (ITALY JUNE 1/6 TRADE-FAIRS QUARTER Vous trouverez la revue PARACHUTE: n ALLEMAGNE WALTER KONIG, Breite Str.93, D-5000 Cologne 1 ANGLETERRE NIGEL GREENWOOD BOOKS LTD., 41, rue Sloane Gardens, London, SWI BELGIQUE E.RONA (H\u2014o), 13, avenue Théodore Roosevelt \u2014 BI320 Genval \u2014 Lac PALAIS DES BEAUX-ARTS, rue Royale 10 \u2014 1000 Bruxelles LIBRAIRIE POST-SCRIPTUM , 70, rue de l\u2019Arbre Bénit, 1050 Bruxelles CANADA MONTRÉAL\tA1I ^AIUO VOUS TROUVEREZ LA REVUE PARACHUTE DANS LES LIBRAIRIES OU DANS LES MUSÉES ET LES GALERIES SUIVANTES: GALERIE B, 3611, rue Saint-Denis GALERIE GILLES GHEERBRANT, 2130, rue Crescent YAJIMA GALERIE, 1625, rue Sherbrooke ouest TORONTO ART MÉTROPOLE, 241 rue Yonge, Toronto, CARMEN LAMANNA GALLERY, 840 rue Yonge, Toronto AUTRES\u2019 LIBRARY, NOVA SCOTIA COLLEGE OF ART & DESIGN, 5163, rue Duke, Halifax, Nova Scotia MUSÉE DU QUÉBEC, Parc des Champs de Bataille, Québec, Québec TABAGIE GIGUÈRE, rue Buade, Québec GALERIE NATIONALE DU CANADA, Ottawa, Ontario LIBRAIRIE DE LA CAPITALE, Centre National des Arts, 75, rue Elgin, Ottawa FOREST CITY GALLERY, 432 Richmond Street, London, Ontario ARTON\u2019S, 318 \u2014 10th St.NW Calgary, Alberta NOVA GALLERY, 1972 West, 4th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C.UNIVERSITY BOOKSTORE, UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLOMBIA, Vancouver, B.C.VANCOUVER ART GALLERY, Bookstore, 1145 West Georgia St.Vancouver V6E 3H2, B.C.WESTERN FRONT, 303 East 8th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C.FRANCE JEAN FOURNIER, 22, rue du BAC, 75007 Paris LA HUNE, 170, boul.St-Germain, 75006 Paris GALERIE YVON LAMBERT, 5, rue Grenier Saint-Lazare, 75003 Paris GALERIE SHANDAR, 40, rue Mazarine, 75006 Paris HOLLANDE OTHER BOOKS AND SO, 227 Herengracht, Amsterdam DE APPEL, Brouwersgracht 196, Amsterdam ITALIE MILAN: EVE ROCKERT CARPI, 18 via Solferino, Milano MULTHIPLA, Piazzale Martini 3, 20137 Milano VENISE: GALLERIA DEL CAVALLINO, San Marco 1725, 30124 FLORENCE: SCHEMA, Via Vigna Nuova 17, 50123 ZONA, Via S.Nicolo 119r, 50125 ROME: UGO FERRANTI, Via Tor Millina 26,00186 BOLOGNA: STUDIO G7, Via Val d\u2019Aposa 7C, 40123 SUISSE ÉCART c/o John Armleder 6, rue de Plantamour, Genève CH 1201 U.S.A.JAAP RIETMAN, INC.167.RUE SPRING.NEW YORK 10012 NEW MORNING, 169 SPRING ST., NEW YORK 10012 PRINTED MATTER, 7 LISPENARD ST., New York RIZZOLI, 712 5th AVENUE, NEW YORK 10019 ITTENBORN, 1018 MADISON AVENUE, NEW YORK NNESSEY & INGALLS, INC.11833 WILSHIRE BLVD.LOS ANGELES CA 90025 ION OF HONOR BOOKSHOP, CALIFORNIA PALACE OF THE LEGION OF HONOR, OLN PARK, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94121 LOOR BOOKSHOP, 70 TWELFTH STREET.SAN FRANCISCO.CA 94103 RESEARCH CENTER, 922 E.48th street, KANSAS CITY, MO 64110 WALLS 30 ESSEX ST.BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14213 "]