ABSTRACT
The assertion of “film as material” is predicated upon repre-sentation, inasmuch as “pure” empty acetate running through the projector-gate without image, for example, merely sets off another level of associations. These can be abstract, or not. But they are, when instigated by such a device, no more materialist or anti-illusionist than any other associations. Thus the film event is by no means necessarily demystified. “Empty screen” is no less significatory than “carefree smile” or “murderous chase.” There are myriad possibilities for co-optation and integration of filmic procedures into the repertoire of meaning. The persistent attempt to misunderstand this has led to blind alleys for attempted analytical criticism of experimental film these last twenty years, and also for the works themselves at times. Film must be constructed in such a way that it does not fall into the “myriad possibilities of meaning.” This necessitates a theoretical stance which understands the concrete consequences of the notion of abstraction and the abstract. Abstract work, so-called, can (but does not have to) be as full of the associative, identificatory pull, narrativizational mechanisms, as anything else, as there is no ontology.
