Film-Philosophy
Journal | Salon | Portal (ISSN 1466-4615)
Vol. 7 No. 51, December 2003
Tammy A. Kinsey
Let us Never Speak of It?:Edward S. Small's _Direct Theory_
Edward S. Small _Direct Theory:
Experimental Film/Video as Major Genre_ Carbondale and
Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press,
1994 ISBN 0-8093-1920-9
122 pp. Direct theory sounds like
a simple idea. We figure we are talking about theory that is
a consequence of something, an effect instantaneously
brought about by some event, book, idea, or film. Edward
Small's 1994 book takes this concept as its title, and
presents a short yet dense set of information intended to
elucidate this idea. The concept of direct theory itself is
taken here as an inevitability, an obvious result of
experimental film and video work. The Preface explains a bit
about the approach: 'this is a book of theory . . . also a
book of history' (xiii). Much of the text reiterates
established historical accounts of those notions inherent in
experimental production. Small makes a point of stating
repeatedly that he feels experimental film and video to be
'overlooked, greatly misunderstood' (xv), and he sets out to
correct this. Small delineates three
distinct theses as the content of _Direct Theory_. First, he
states that experimental film and video should be seen as a
major genre, a category of work like that of narrative
fiction or documentary. Next, he suggests that experimental
film should be linked -- technically, structurally, and
historically -- to art video. He then points to eight common
traits seen in works of this type, whether produced in film
or video, to substantiate this claim. Finally, Small states
that experimental film and video functions as a unique
'direct theory that bypasses the limiting intervention of
separate semiotic systems, especially the spoken or written
language upon which the accepted history of film theory
depends' (xv). It is here that we find Small's most
provocative notion. This is not as simple as it seems, nor
is it without conceptual problems. The six chapters that
follow are designed to give credence to these concepts,
chiefly by means of an historical overview of the work
typically termed avant-garde. The first two chapters look at
arguments in support of direct theory itself and at the
means by which genre studies may more correctly incorporate
experimental media. Subsequent chapters explore
chronologies, theoretical discoveries and critical discourse
from the various movements collected under the rubric of
experimental film and video. The European avant-garde is
covered, along with American avant-garde, underground
filmmaking, expanded cinema, visionary film, and finally,
experimental video. Small correlates the experimental film
of various decades with the philosophical notions brought
forth in response to the work. Andre Bazin's exploration of
cinema's ability to reproduce reality is investigated in
relation to Sergei Eisenstein's studies into the
transformational power of images. Film theory's turn towards
semiotics is discussed with much emphasis on the work of
Ferdinand de Saussure. Films discussed are posited as
concrete examples in support of the main concepts of the
book. Small asks two very
important questions in the first chapter which are the
substance of the rest of the book. He speaks of the history
of written film theory as a body of 'academically accepted
texts. How, then, can a given body of film (and later,
video) production be said to fit and follow this same
tradition?' (4) A couple of paragraphs later, Small states
that: 'a second, more
fundamental question remains: how can the semiotic system of
images (cinematographic or videographic, likely accompanied
by sounds but for the sake of this question no pertinent
written or spoken words) function as that mode of
philosophic discourse we regard as theoretical?' (4-5)
Small goes on to say that
experimental film's major function is neither to reveal
information (as documentaries) nor to entertain (as is
common with fictive narratives), but rather to 'theorize
upon its own substance by reflecting back on its own
intrinsic semiotic system(s)' (5). These issues inform the
discussion of direct theory. Let us take Small's trio
of thesis statements into account. First, the idea is
presented that experimental film and video should rightly be
construed as an independent genre. One must realize that the
book in question is nearly a decade old, but one must also
wonder about the question. Yes, experimental film and video
are obviously a major and separate category of cinematic
art, but one must also discover that *genre* itself is not
altogether clear in our contemporary world. Our system of
images today is infused with all manner of materials, with
new concepts in narrative fictions, so-called *reality* TV,
non-linear narrative structures in mainstream Hollywood
films, etc. Contemporary media seems to be breaking the
bounds of when and where we see certain styles and forms
arise. What is really *generic* about experimental film and
video at all? So much difference is present that perhaps
those of us who espouse a deep love for experimental work
have the commonality of enjoying images that are
*different*, modes of storytelling not typically seen in all
areas of cinema. Small lists eight
characteristics for the form of experimental film and video
in his discussion supporting the argument for genre
separation as well as for the connection between art video
and experimental film. The first three, personal autonomy of
the artist ('acollaborative construction or quintessential
auteur control'), financial autonomy, and brevity of the
work (17-19), are likely familiar to those well versed in
production of experimental and independent work. The fourth
characteristic listed names 'an affinity for ongoing
technological developments' (19), and calls forth the idea
that experimental artists are very interested in technical
aspects of production, including 'animation, step printers .
. . special effects . . . an eventual embrace of video
technology and computer graphics' (19). This element is
certainly true for some artists, but not for all. Fifth,
Small names 'a penchant for the phenomenology of mental
imagery' as a characteristic of experimental work (19).
Again, this is true for some filmmakers. Small's sixth
characteristic is 'the avoidance of verbal language' (20).
The last two listed are obviously the post pivotal to his
argument for direct theory overall: 'an exploration of
nonnarrative structures' (21) and the reflexivity inherent
in experimental work. Small's discussion of these areas in
broad terms is somewhat limited, but his consideration of
the problems in defining reflexivity is particularly
compelling. Small's second major
thesis is that of the correlation between experimental film
and video art. Again, it seems obvious that these areas are
linked in a great many ways, and Small's discussion of the
aesthetic qualities of video is quite interesting. There are
many reasons an artist may choose to present his or her work
in either film or video, in Super8 film loops or
multi-channel digital displays, but an assessment of the
choices of the artist is not a part of Small's discussion.
Finally, Small presents
his intriguing concept of 'direct theory'. He asserts that
experimental film and video call for a unique mode of
theory, one that transcends the written or spoken word. This
is indeed a satisfying notion, and one that requires much
thought, but I am left wondering then what is next? Is this
possible? How can we speak of it? Can anyone write about it?
What is the next step here? I believe _Direct Theory_ moves
in a very precise region of the discussion of experimental
forms, and there are fewer conclusions here than are needed.
Small states in his Preface: 'beyond (or beside) these three
theoretical theses is a careful chronological overview that
should serve as a thorough text for college courses devoted
to the history of its subject' (xv). The book is brief and
the works and theories outlined are naturally used in
service to the theses presented. I wouldn't use this book as
a text in my courses on experimental film and video, as I
find it lacking in scope as a historical overview. The
discussion of cognitive science as it relates to film theory
is almost entirely absent, and that area is of great
relevance, especially when we are considering the idea of
direct theory. Is it possible to herd experimental work into
this large space and say that the obvious sub-genres should
be considered in the same theoretical ways? The book has in
some cases clarified my own thoughts about certain works,
but it hasn't changed my notions. It does, however, inspire
many questions. For this, it must be applauded. University of
Toledo Ohio, USA Copyright ©
Film-Philosophy 2003 Tammy A. Kinsey, 'Let us
Never Speak of It?: Edward S. Small's _Direct Theory_',
_Film-Philosophy_, vol. 7 no. 51, December 2003
<http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol7-2003/n51kinsey>. Read a response to this
text: Edward S. Small, 'A Reply
to Kinsey', _Film-Philosophy_, vol. 7 no. 52, December 2003
<http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol7-2003/n52small>. Join the _Film-Philosophy_
salon, and receive the journal articles via email as they
are published. here
Save as Plain Text Document...Print...Read...Recycle
Film-Philosophy (ISSN 1466-4615)
PO Box 26161, London SW8 4WD, England
Contact: editor@film-philosophy.com
Back to the Film-Philosophy homepage
