As exhilarating as most of his films are, Brakhage's work can also be impenetrable, and if viewers don't happen to be in the mood to use those parts of their brains that Brakhage is interested in engaging, then his films can be maddeningly opaque, hermetic, obscure, academic. Of course, these are the terms most often used -- usually in tandem with "elitist" -- to dismiss abstract art, whether it's on the wall or on the page. Such epithets are meant to flatter and glorify the un-curious and the anti-intellectual at the expense of viewers -- or readers or listeners -- who aren't afraid to have their curiosity rewarded with occasional moments of frustration or confusion. Those who prefer their art safely representational have the security of knowing they'll rarely be confounded; on the other hand, they may not get to experience those occasional moments of connection, clarity and even bliss that occur when one encounters an artist's pure, if abstract, effort to communicate the ineffable.
The
National Gallery in Washington, D.C., is hosting a retrospective of the films of
Stan Brakhage.
Comments
"hermetic", "opaque" and "obscure" are perfectly fitting words to describe brakhage's work. "pretentious nonsense" suits it as well. you certainly don't have to be a philistine, as the writer suggests, to find his work to be of very little use or value.
Posted by: jwolf | October 23, 2002 10:37 AM