Talk:Structural film
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]I feel this article on structural film is too short, and will try to fill it out a bit.
Andrew Szanton, 4/06
It would be great if someone more knowledgeable than I am could expand on the genre's difference/distinction from literary and philosophical Structuralism.DILNN1 (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
reader
[edit]http://waysofseeing.org/struct.html - Structural Films: Meditation through Simple Forms
How to expand
[edit]I've been wanting to expand this article for a while but haven't known where to start. A major obstacle is the conflation of structural film as a movement (with a set time period and associated artists) and structural film as a genre/style (with a set of artistic properties found in works outside that period).
I want to get some thoughts down on where to go from the current state. That way if I don't get to expanding it maybe someone else will find these notes useful, or if I do, it'll hopefully explain why I'd be removing/modifying some of what we havee now.
- What is the history of the films themselves? A good history could include the filmmakers originally associated with structural film, institutions that helped it develop (the Film-Makers' Coop, London Film-Makers' Co-op, SUNY Binghamton, LOC's Paper Film Collection?, Millennium Film Workshop?, screening venues?), how/why any "key films" were influential. In particular, that allows us to distinguish between the North American movement Sitney describes and, for example, the subsequent UK movement or structural film in other countries or similar works from later periods. Right now the "Key films" section is filling this role but flattens those distinctions, so I see this as a replacement for that section. Maybe even merge "Key filmmakers" too, because there are filmmakers associated with structural film as a genre but not a movement and vice versa.
- What was the reaction to Sitney's definition? Aside from the reaction to the films themselves, there have been different reactions to the definition itself.
- How has Sitney's definition changed, or what other definitions have been used? Rephotography wasn't originally one of the characteristics and was added later. I'm sure there are also other definitions which focus less on individual characteristics.
- What background can be added? Sitney frames structural film as a reaction to Anger, early Brakhage, and Markopoulos, so common characteristics of those films might be useful. Precursors with similar features (e.g. Kubelka, Warhol) would be good to mention. Maciunas talks about similar artistic styles in other media.