Bruce Conner
// March 2nd, 2009 // Art, Film
This past Saturday night Mira and I, on the advice of our friend Mike, went to see part one of the Bruce Conner tribute at the Hammer Museum. I have to say that I know very little when it comes to experimental film history and had never heard of Bruce Conner before Mike told me about him last week. But I was fascinated when Mike told me that he was famous for using found footage to make his films and being that a week earlier I had found myself borrowing David Harris’ copy of by Brakhage, I felt Mira and I needed to go check the films and continue my exploration into the world of experimental films. Plus, Dennis Hopper was doing the introduction to the program!
I will also admit that while I was curious about Mr. Conner’s films, I didn’t have high hopes for them. Despite my desire to like experimental films, the vast majority of them leave me confused and/or annoyed after viewing them. But I soon found that these films were different. I actually enjoyed myself and enjoyed the films (well, most of the films). From everything I have read and heard about Bruce Conner, it is his fast paced editing style that makes him the precursor to the MTV music video genre. His films have a real energy to them and maintain a chaotic flow. Take for example the following film he did using stock footage from the fifties and the Devo track Mongoloid:
I wish I had gone tonight, to the second night of the program downtown at the Redcat but I was quite tired after work and had to finish up some stuff for a freelance job I’ve been working on.
Mike told me that it was Bruce Conner’s wish that his films not be shown after his death and that this might be the last time the public would get a chance to see his work. I feel like that’s an annoying and pointless request for someone to make. Why would you not want your work to bee seen for as long as people want to see it? This raises a question I sometimes think about: Who really owns a work of art after it is completed? Sure, the obvious answer is legally, it is owned by the artist (or whomever paid for the work) but isn’t here a “higher” owner to art, especially after the artist has died? Couldn’t one argue that great art is for everyone and that everyone should in someway, have access to that art? I hope I’m not sounding too hippie-dippy about this but it’s something I think about. Who owns the work of Shakespeare and Charlie Chaplin? How can one request to limit or close off access to film or literature that was so clearly made for the public to enjoy? I believe films like this should be made available for all to see for as long as possible. Just like the artist in the following film, you can’t leave good art to sit gathering dust in a dark room where no one can see it; you have to bring it out into the light where everyone can see it and have a chance to enjoy it.
Here is one last example of Bruce Conner’s work that they showed during the program. It’s called A Movie and was really good. Although I do think that this film, along with the rest of the films in this post can’t be fully appreciated unless seen on a big screen in a theater. But seeing them like this is better then not seeing them at all.
