Film between Black Box and White Cube - Part 2

In the first part of this article we took a critical look at the paradoxes entailed in presenting films in an art gallery environment – our starting point being the observation that more and more short film makers are devoting their attention to the art market.What is the present status of artistically ambitious film in relation to the cinema? Which advantages does the art market offer artists working in film?

Film Art in the Black Box: A niche that's getting smaller

The general withdrawal of short film makers from the classic cinema environment is taking place at a time when there are fewer and fewer art cinemas and film theatres around to present their work on the big screen. At the same time, it is not only becoming more difficult for the cinemas and cultural institutions that are left to rent art films, but it's also increasingly hard for them to find an audience for such works or to attract new viewers.

The latter is a consequence of the complex interaction between cinemas' programming policies and the expectations of the public. Culturally-oriented cinemas that present a growing proportion of mainstream or classic feature films forfeit those members of the film-going public who are interested in cinematic art, but, on the flip side, they also experience a slump in the ranks of their feature film audience whenever they present more artistically demanding works. The fact that the programmes offered by art houses seem to be sacrificing depth can be traced less to disinterest on the part of the programme planners than to economic pressures to save on high rental fees and artistic royalties, while at the same time achieving high box office receipts. Matthias Müller asks, "How many cinema operators would be in a position today – given sufficient interest and knowledge – to take the financial risk, and make the technical and organisational effort, to find a niche in their programming schedule for presenting experimental film, other than as a half-hearted token attempt?"

For the publicly sponsored art cinemas (in Germany these comprise mostly the "Kommunale Kinos" and theatres run by film museums) this development is in many respects proving fatal. While the cutbacks induced by present-day cultural politics are forcing them to abandon art films, this by the same token causes them somewhere along the way to lose their cultural legitimacy. And they come up empty-handed both financially, forfeiting their claim to public funding, and on a conceptual level, by undermining their own cultural identity and ideals. Instead of firmly 'inhabiting' the arts sector and being able to actively represent it, they are forced to slide ever further down the slippery slope toward commercialism, into a situation in which art barely manages to eke out a niche existence under their roofs.

What is often overlooked is that this dilemma also has serious repercussions for the areas of film distribution and production. Distributors and archives offering art pictures report sinking lending rates and are thus being forced to raise their already high distribution fees. This is felt keenly by those festivals and Kommunale Kinos that maintain their own film archives, as well as by other institutions, such as the Friends of the German Film Archive. And of course also by the artists, whose royalties end up suffering.

Note: This means that the problems being encountered by the art cinemas and film culture as a whole can only be solved by way of a cultural policy initiative encompassing all areas of production, sales and screening in a broad, cross-regional concept. This kind of comprehensive concept is just what's missing at the moment, something one becomes painfully aware of each time an institution devoted to film culture is left floundering and has to face its battle for existence alone. Again and again, the commitment to preserving a lively film culture and the multiple benefits it brings -- an interest that reaches far beyond local and regional borders -- is forced to battle ignorance and philistinism on the level of local government administrations.

Film in the Art World: Acceptance and Appreciation

Many artists working in film feel more welcome nowadays in museums and galleries than at the cinema. Bj?rn Melhus commented that, "the artists who are profiting from this acceptance are naturally those who have always worked in these media and whose works were previously represented exclusively by a system of festivals and cinemas. Galleries and museums are actually able to attract a larger audience these days than the so-called art cinemas; whether or not it's a more culturally sensitive audience remains to be seen." But he still values the museum-going public's basic inclination to perceive film as art: "A broader section of the public likely to frequent a museum has entirely different kinds of expectations than the usual audience seated in the cinema. I'm talking about a certain readiness to actively come to terms with art." This is a kind of willingness he sees represented more rarely at the cinema: "The viewer enters into a kind of deal in which he/she unconsciously expects to get something in return for the time spent there, which, due to his or her usual movie-going habits, often means that there must be a certain entertainment value involved. This of course doesn't apply to the small community that has already trained other kinds of viewing habits."

To the question of whether film festivals should now also forego artistic films since the cinema structure for such works is disintegrating, Melhus responded: "I think that festivals are still the primary forum for this film culture and needn't fear being faced with a dearth of artistic works, as long as they remain flexible. (However) if festivals don't start turning their attention toward current tendencies of film and video in the contemporary art world, and fail to open up their selection committees and curatorial departments, artists' participation as well as the interest and involvement of visitors will continue to decline." This is surely true, but it still seems that it's precisely those festivals that fulfil these criteria that are now experiencing a situation in which agencies or galleries withhold films from them.

In reply to the question of whether museums and galleries are able to attract a wider audience than, for example, film festivals, Matthias Müller noted: "During an exhibition running for several weeks it's of course possible to reach a bigger audience than in a one-time festival screening. In addition, art critics tend to take note of film and video in the art context, whereas film critics virtually ignore short film and media arts festivals. Even more important for me than the greater visibility afforded the work, however, is the fact that films in this context are surrounded by other artworks with thematic and formal connections to them: at best, exciting correspondences can emerge here. This happens only rarely at a festival, at which the most diverse genres come together, and, at worst, even clash with one another, since the only thing they have in common is the year they were produced."

By no means the least important consequence of the new acceptance of film and media works on the arts scene is a financial appreciation of the artworks that, at least for the more successful artists, brings far greater economic advantages than can be offered by the traditional cinematic and film distribution structures. Matthias Müller observes in this connection: "After twenty years of "experimental film", I know for certain that I can't make a living based on sales volume; any attempt at this has led me often enough into dealings with middlemen for whom price-cutting and breaches of contract are simply part of their day-to-day business. Therefore, there's no alternative to a serious gallery that sells limited editions - and at a price corresponding to that for comparable works in other artistic disciplines. Accepting the rules of the art market, which means publishing an artwork as a unique object or limited edition, means also having a stock in protecting this market as a life-preserving system for the artist."

Similar arguments were put forth by Melhus: "Sales achieved on the art market can by all means turn out much higher than those attained through distribution and can, at best, ultimately form a sound financial basis for the artist/producer, freeing him from any dependence on other sources of income.

Up until now, it was these artists especially who were dependent upon grants, sponsorship, teaching assignments or even completely unrelated activities to make ends meet. In many cases, this kind of self-exploitation sooner or later led to stagnation or to giving up on artistic work altogether. (...) If such an artist then finds his work in demand on the art market, it is entirely legitimate for him to turn toward this option." And Bj?rn Melhus goes on to ask: "Is it perhaps even good for some works not to be available always and everywhere? Won't the cinemas be crowded again when the public realizes that there are only three copies of an art film being shown in the whole world and they now have one of the rare opportunities to see it? Is this a way of differentiating between art and the entertainment market? Or is it all just a questionable shift toward a capitalistic art market, which is now engulfing film and video as well -- a culture that has in fact always existed on the outside and whose strength consisted in being independent. How independent? And how strong? (...)

The Influence of the Art Market on Artistic Production and Conception

It's important to note that the conditions prevailing in the art market also have their influence on the conception of filmmakers' works. While the filmmakers used to have strong ties to the cinema, they are now devoting their attention to the exhibition space, with works that are no longer suitable for the big screen. Matthias Müller commented critically: "The increasing interest of the art world in moving images should therefore not simply be viewed as a chance to continue work in experimental film under new circumstances, or as a way of achieving freedom from the restraints of the cinema, with its limited options for reception. On the contrary, this situation places such specific demands on a work that its aesthetic options are whittled down considerably. Concessions to exhibition practice include the fact that a work may not exceed a certain length, nor proceed on a linear course, but rather must be designed as a loop. This narrows down the bandwidth to productions that are short, minimalist, monomorphic or laid out conceptually." Artists who succumb to these demands are then lost to the cinema or festivals. This is because, "few works function well in both settings. Behind the decision to bring out films and videos in different versions compatible to either festival screening or gallery exhibition, one usually finds strategic savvy rather than artistic necessity", according to Matthias Müller.

The Future between White Cube and Black Box – Open Questions

Stakeholders firmly anchored in either one of the two 'camps' have not yet come to terms with these issues. Whereas the cinema side is perhaps too slow to react and professionally blinkered, the art scene pragmatically follows current hype, without being aware of the broader consequences of its actions. The art world is not in a position to deal with the media-specific questions involved and is generally at a loss for answers, or even a modicum of insight into its own paradoxes. Statements and questions evincing critical reflection on the topic thus come primarily from the artists, who are themselves caught between art and film and are beginning to weigh the pros and cons brought by the new development, wondering whether it will be lasting and how the two 'worlds' can be combined to their mutual advantage.

Bj?rn Melhus observes: "As a crossover artist between both 'systems', I have continually been amazed during the last few years how little one knows about the other. Both sides need to open up and cooperate with each other more, or even to merge into one system. There are already tendencies in that direction, but there's still too much arrogance and insecurity. First and foremost, it's a question of creating synergies. One of these could be the effort to bring the art-viewing public into the art cinemas ".

Reinhard W. Wolf

Note: Please see also the latest postings on the topic of "Art and Film" by Stefanie Schulte Strathaus (Arsenal, Berlin) and Michael Mazi?re (London), in the LETTERS TO THE EDITOR section.