EN: Bookreview: Expanded Cinema

Gene Youngblood
P. Dutton & Co. Inc., New York 1970

Rarely have my feelings been so divided about a book. When I read the first hundred pages I was overly exited to find a book at my hands that might actually answer some questions - a book that was over 35 years old and seemed somehow very up to date. Yet the pure information regarding an "expanded cinema" as the title suggests are already rare in that part of the book with constant - sometimes out of place - references to the science. The introduction from R. Buckminster Fuller seemed already a little far fetched for a book with such an specific title. I thought the whole thing would actually lead to a point, go beyond description of how science and art has merged and how drug induced artists will soon overcome the boundaries that traditional Hollywood cinema dictates. After the first part Mr. Youngblood goes on to give examples of the superiority in expanded cinema calling out the biggest names of his times - not only in the field of cinema but also in the field of psychology and science and art in general. Throughout the rest of the book he never stops to praise to technology and - his biggest mistake with the whole thing - makes constantly predictions about the future, sadly for him and the dear reader not a single one of his predictions has turned out to be true or is even close to become a reality - that happens with actual time spans that are long long overdue (page 399: "It is certain that holographic cinema and television will be common by the year 2000; but more probably this will take place within fifteen years from now.") or predictions that are connected to technological developments where the developments have been in long done but his predictions of radical change they would bring - especially in the field of computer art - have not happened at all or have been proven not to be very popular. He really tries to make the case for a synaestetic cinema - one that is not only bound between two senses but generally takes on cinema at a psychological mystical level, yet the examples he brings out with lengthy interviews remind you of the wild 70s that my generation has only heard about on the radio and you never stop thinking that they should have taken less LSD at the time and actually concentrated on making something useful. When you flip through the book you see all the screen caps from the works he cites and you think "well yes iTunes visualizer art galore", psychedelic colors with psychedelic patterns forming psychedelic mandalas - sometimes overexposed on real video/film that is heavily distorted. Its all fine and an important artform of the day that marked another testing out psychological and synaestetic ideas for humanity to move beyond but to even think that this would kill a plot based cinema - something he rants so badly about in his book - is very naive. (page 352: "People are tired of the standard plot structure. New film experiences will result, in which there'll be a tight relationship between the movie and the architecture in which it's housed.") Of course some of the findings are interesting and the best quotes he brings on are those not related to cinema but are more social comments that are fully relevant today as they where back then yet the book title should have been much more general and the whole book much more focused on the sociality of late 60s early 70s.
Another thing that seems this book seemed to be good at is talking about technology. Anyone who follows vjforums knows that I am not very keen on technological discussions when it comes to the future of live based visual arts. I do actually love to rant about technology every day of the week but not when it dictates each and every discussion about the art. It seems that is not a new phenomena and Mr. Youngblood is extremely guilty of that in his book. My personal theory is that the less you can talk about actual content the more the talk shifts to technology to justify an art. Needless to say that I personally totally disapprove that. Yes our art is very depended on technology and there is cool technology out there to talk about - no it should not take up 75% of the conversations about this art as it makes the artform with its message irrelevant and does not advance it. Now I hear the comments already telling me "THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE". Well let me tell you that this might have been true for some pioneers maybe even back in the 70s but not ALL of them. A medium can be the message if the medium is new and has a revolutionary impact on society and some people putting the medium at center stage - Nam June Paik beeing the one prime example with his TV pyramids in 1966, yet psychadelic mandalas not tied to any specific medium (film, tv, video they are basically moving pictures and moving pictures can not be medium in its own) are not portraying a message that supports the medium they are portraying the message of a self proclaimed drug users message. The spiritual revolution and freedom of body and mind in the 60s has (sadly I might add) failed to have any deep impact on modern society, we still have wars, we still are detached from our bodies detached from nature and sadly the psychedelic cinema and video and sensorium and theater of these days have not have a longer lasting effect nor have initiated a revolution in the traditional constants, hell not even a broader discussion in public has taken place after the wild 70s where over and woodstocks memory was just grainy 8mm films.
Where I think the book is good at and where it definitely helped me in some regard is that is shows the ways that are not worth traveling in my research as they have been tried out from highly talented people with lots of time, seemingly money and expensive equipment on hand. When I hear about the projects they undertook to make Hollywoods lead role in cinema history I won´t even attempt to rival them. The clear "abstract" cinematic qualities - even so Youngblood tries to defuse that term in the book - of the expanded cinema in the 70s seemingly had not even a little impact on traditional cinema other then that the big cinema was taking some specific styles here and there from it to spice up there otherwise traditional linear plot based cinema.
Youngblood also makes the claim that the viewer is bored and could take up to ten times the information in the same time period - something that has not changed in my mind to this day - cinema and tv seem to be always slow compared with what the up growing generation can intake. He suggests that because of this collage will rule over montage in the future. While I think that he might be right that it could be the better approach I fail to see any collages he mentions that induces the mind as a good plot would ever do and capture an audience. He claims that this is due to the passivity of the audience wanting to not think. Maybe I am too conditioned already in this society and bombarded with too much passive making entertainment but even if I really really want to see the deeper meaning of some of the film collages from back then or from today I am getting very bored after the first ten minutes - something that even average Hollywood movies do not suffer from - and I am a person really trying to get inspiration and mental advancement out of this on purpose - I guess that people not thinking about any of this stuff - like the other 90% - might get bored after two minutes and turn it off.
Whats my point? There have been many missteps and misconceptions in the field of synaestetic cinema throughout history, the biggest problem seems to be to make outrageous claims that the public swallows and then is disappointed to the heart at what they see compared to the un-arty mass-media. I think this has hurt any new and old media art more then anything else and reading through press releases of renown "artists" today it seems it has not changed a bit (taking for example Addictive TVs 5 minute Hollywood sampling project). Its true that there is a search for the holy grail of media art beyond consumerist mass-media - but its a search and its not clear if there is a specific outcome and so should the artist be honest to the world and the media critics see this art as developing and ever changing. Everyone involved in this from the 70s to today seems to be overly optimistic about technology and I think that "the medium is the message" has seen the end of live for any mature media. Its the content that should carry the message and the medium is the simple means of transport for that message and at maximum is able to amplify an already important message.
To get back on topic and round up the review I would suggest anyone living the art of new media to read this book and see what routes have obviously failed to come to acceptance in the general population that is not bored, upper middle class, LSD induced and living in New York or Southern California. Youngblood shows with his passion and over scientific language that no matter how much you want something to be turning out your way it does not mean it actually does turn out that way. Here we are 30 years after the publication of that book with Hollywood actually seeing a downward trend but no valid alternative being evolved it seems that the trials of the 60s can not reach the of sophistication of cinema - not back then not today - so a new approach needs to be taking and for that insight I thank Mr. Youngblood for his insight full book.

PS: The book can be downloaded free of charge from the Vasulkas.