I just reread the Hans Richter article so that I could write this reading response with the text fresh in my mind. I liked that he drew the conclusion that experimental filmmakers are in their own sense original artists and not dependent on literature. I believe Richter's article tried to touch on such a broad range of topics in too short of an article. It felt like I was constantly was trying to keep up.
Scott McDonald's article was definitely the most comprehensive and easiest to relate to. I liked his concept that because audiences have been trained started at an early age to believe that a narrative feature film is the only acceptable type of movie. When I saw my first experimental films in Kreul's class last year, I admit I was counting down the minutes till it was over. I considered it a film, but not entertaining nor enjoyable. I love the whole idea that experimental film could serve as a cultural revolution. yay.
Finally, Fred Camper's article just amused me. I love that he even attempted to put parameters on experimental film. Good luck with that Camper. His article further affirmed to me that Stan Brakhage is the man. According to Brakhage, the term Avant-Garde was " too European " and "Underground " film making was also a misnomer because he lives "9000 ft about sea level." Glorious.
