The Colour Spectrum of Abstract Films

[Zeego]

Cinema of the Abstract: The Colour Spectrum of Abstract Films

I especially like the distinction between external and internal abstraction, reminds me a bit of Jung's distinction between extroversion and introversion:

This distinction could get controversial, but in terms of what is "abstract" in a piece of art, or even in something that isn't meant to be a piece of art yet causes an unexpected feeling of disconnect or distortion of a viewer's familiar mood, there is a clear line for me in the "External" and the "Internal" in anything from Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan (2010) to Paul Sharits' experimental short T.O.U.C.H.I.N.G (1968). The obvious question to ask is what I mean as the "Abstract". This word will be brought up as one of the categories in this spectrum but it's worth saying here that the reaction one has to a movie or short or TV programme that knocks you out of complacency and gets an unexpected reaction, even if it was a very weird episode of the Teletubbies, is what the blog is about. Unexpected and emotionally powerful nostalgia, fear of the unknown or a hallucinatory effect. Even the scratching of the head in confusion. As someone who wolfs down this sort of work, not just in film but also music and literature, there's an obvious split that exists even outside of depictions that are meant to represent the subconscious or the psychological states of the characters or the creators and viewers, that which is "External" and needs a literal image or direct sense like a specific sound to effect the viewer, and the "Internal", that just has to suggest something even very vague and not depicted as it would be people in their everyday lives but has a pronounced emotional effect. Even when psychological an abstract, weird, freakish, disturbing etc. moment in a movie or motion work fully relies on the contents of real life to be distorted or effected. A more "internal" work however, even when it relies on external content, uses it for a prop and the subconscious content is prioritised by itself and would still have the same reaction because its directly about the atmosphere and moods that can effect a viewer. Again, I am not pitting one against the other, and films certainly have juggled both sides.

 

[Ingrid in grids]

This doesn't really resonate with me at all. Not only is it poorly written, I just don't find much merit in his system.

As far as I can tell, what he appears to be describing are the moments of heightened subjectivity in experiencing film... moments which cannot be fully accounted for by the film's depictions, whose materiality we can't quite grasp. These moments also feel so elusive because film is such an ephemeral medium, so even on reviewing we often can't recapture the same subjective moment. Also, experimental films, because their lack of narrative structure and unity, can make it more difficult to identify the source of these experiences compared with films which may be more literal in their depictions.

I don't find his dichotomy of "external" and "internal" to be an appropriate or helpful way of understanding this phenomena. I think this is because he is assuming that the site of these moments are within the text, either at an "external" or "internal" level. These subjective moments aren't found within the text, but more with perceiver, or existing in the void between the two.

Although, I am approaching this as someone who has lost interest in typology and has an academic background in film studies.

Edit: Also I'm mildly annoyed that he used the colour spectrum as a metaphor for his framework. It makes the title of his piece misleading. Colour theory is its own field within film studies.

 

[Zeego]

This doesn't really resonate with me at all. Not only is it poorly written, I just don't find much merit in his system.

As far as I can tell, what he appears to be describing are the moments of heightened subjectivity in experiencing film... moments which cannot be fully accounted for by the film's depictions, whose materiality we can't quite grasp. These moments also feel so elusive because film is such an ephemeral medium, so even on reviewing we often can't recapture the same subjective moment. Also, experimental films, because their lack of narrative structure and unity, can make it more difficult to identify the source of these experiences compared with films which may be more literal in their depictions.

I don't find his dichotomy of "external" and "internal" to be an appropriate or helpful way of understanding this phenomena. I think this is because he is assuming that the site of these moments are within the text, either at an "external" or "internal" level. These subjective moments aren't found within the text, but more with perceiver, or existing in the void between the two.

Although, I am approaching this as someone who has lost interest in typology and has an academic background in film studies.

Edit: Also I'm mildly annoyed that he used the colour spectrum as a metaphor for his framework. It makes the title of his piece misleading. Colour theory is its own field within film studies.

I agree that it could be better worded, but I at least find the concept of it interesting. I also agree that descriptions or analysis of a film cannot recapture a film's emotional content, since film is such an inherently experiential medium, but I'd argue that the purpose of analysis is to help clarify and understand, not to capture emotional states.

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that the author was indeed saying that "These subjective moments aren't found within the text, but more with perceiver, or existing in the void between the two." Or at least, that's how I interpreted it. Once again, the author's questionable wording may be to blame.

You're probably right in that it's better to approach films on an individual basis rather than with typology. I mainly just linked to this here because of its parallels with personality typology.

 

[Ingrid in grids]

I had another read through, and it seems to me that he's actually nearing towards semiotic film theory, although probably not aware that he's talking about semiotics, and describing his ideas in a bit of an odd, half-baked way.

Put basically, the complexity of film language means that meanings can be signified in different, multi-dimensional ways by combining elements of filmic text ("codes") in different contexts. Sometimes meanings are conveyed in a very straightforward way, e.g., the flashback is black and white, the sound of a gunshot signifies a gun. This seems to be what he is describing as "external." Other times, meanings are created through more complex combinations of elements which, in particular contexts, create a particular subjective experience or understanding in the viewer which might not be obviously or directly linked to what one appears to be seeing on-screen. This branch leads to psychoanalytic film theory.

Convention also plays into this, as audiences grow accustomed to certain codes meaning certain things. I suppose this might be what he is getting at partly with his "commercial" - "avant-garde" spectrum.

I had a quick glance through his blog and he seems to be quite prolific. He watches a lot of films and has a lot of ideas about what he is viewing. It's just a shame that he has not been exposed to much theory because it would really ground some of his ideas.