Talk:Experimental film

message: Just this post to announce the birth of Exprmntl.net (mediawiki website), general encyclopaedia of audio-visual art.
You will find a data base on practical the audio-visual alternatives: experimental cinema, do it yourself cinema, video art, web art, avant-gardes, activisms, super 8… 
Exprmntl.net exists now in 4 languages:  French, English, Spanish, German.
The French version is the most advanced (it takes again the sites cineastes.net)
The English version is now experimental version.
It awaits nothing any more but you for agrandire.
Write in English, one will translate into French, and reciprocally.
84.100.40.26 22:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: birth of exprmntl.net

message: A mid-Feb edit introduced a line that "Anger's Scorpio Rising is one of the few experimental films NYU owns." So what is NYU? And why is its portfolio of interest here (esp for those of us outside the USA)? I'm inclined to delete the sentence unless anyone can demonstrate its relevance. AllyD 10:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NYU?

message: Additional Notes: 5/13/08
1.
"and often opposed to, the practices of mainstream commercial and documentary filmmaking." this is an opinion and has nothing to do with the definition of experimental film.
2.
"Avant-garde" is also used to describe this work, and "underground" has been used in the past, though it has also had other connotations." It is not just the latter that has different connotations but both.
3.
"At least through the 1960s, and to some extent after, many experimental films took an oppositional stance toward mainstream culture." this is again an opinion and has nothing to do with the definition of experimental film.
4.
"It has been argued that much experimental film is no longer in fact "experimental," but has in fact become a film genre and that many of its more typical features - such as a non-narrative, impressionistic or poetic approaches to the film's construction - define what is generally understood to be "experimental", this is somewhat accurate but should be revised and moved to the opening sentence.
5.
 "The goal is often to place the viewer in a more active and more thoughtful relationship to the film." this is again an opinion and represents only a small segment of experimental film.
6.
There is no mention of the differences between experimental film and installation art which incorporates moving images and/or new media which does the same.
This page is extremely biased and needs to be revised. I agree with the comments below.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.228.215 (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: significant problems highlighted

message: I added an external link to a page linking to my many articles on avant-garde and experimental film, all of them first publisehd in periodicals and books elsewhere, spanning four decades. I then got a Wiki-message from "Freshacconci" (at least I do use my real name), which I can no longer find to read and can see no way to reply to, perhaps due to the fact that I don't want to spend an hour or two reading Wiki-help, to the effect that external links should not be used for self promotion. Anyone who thinks my placing of much of my copyrighted writing, highly regarded by many, on the 'Net for free constitutes "self-promotion," and that therefore my link should be removed, as "Freshacconci" apparently did, can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. I have too much else going on to worry about this sort of nonsense or spend any more time on Wikipedia. Anyone with half a brain who actually looks at my writing ought to be able to see it ia as useful, whether you agree or disagree with it, as most or all of the other links, if not more so.
The "banned" link is 
Fredcamper 22:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to my writing deleted 

message: I've added one important external link and made some additions to some early sections, but the "Experimental Film in the Academy" section is a mess, and apparently also written by someone who doesn't know the difference between "it's" and "its." (I fixed one of those.) I've actually written extensively on the subject, in a long article in Millennium Film Journal in 1987, an article that inspired a whole conference on the state of the field in Toronto in 1989 (at which I was the opening speaker). If someone who also knows the field would like to collaborate on a replacement, please email me, f followed by the at sign followed by fredcamper dot com. Fredcamper 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes I've made, and "Experimental Film in the Academy" 

message: This article had been sitting for some months emblazoned with notices and with opinions, appelas to "arbitration" etc embedded in the text. Fredcamper has started a clean-up. Following from that, I think it is time to complete the rest. So I've made a start:
* The Distribution and Exhibition sections were always overlapping themes and information. I've lifted the chunks of non-opinion-based text from the Distribution section and blended them into the Exhibition section.
* I have not yet followed through on Step 2, but I think it should be the deletion of the Distribution section as (a) the information is now under Exhibition and (b) the residue is non-encyclopaedic in tone and opinion. I see this as deletion of Distribution, so that "Experimental Film and the Academy" now follows from "Feminist avant-garde and other political offshoots". If any reader disagrees and thinks that would be too brutal, please say so / or revise the text to facilitate the simplification.
* Step 3 I feel should be the removal of the notices at the top. The article has indeed been reviewed by an expert on the subject who has made some recent changes (thanks, Fred!) and I hope that by this point in the improvement programme the article will no longer appear to be pushing a line?
Views welcome. AllyD 20:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can remove a tag. It's best to only remove it once the issues have been addressed in the article and discussed in the talk page. Ideally, the editor who added the tag will have given his/her  reasons for doing so on the talk page and you can then address those points. For a factual dispute, it's often unsourced information that seems unlikely or controversial. If you feel the article has been improved enough to remove the tag, do so, as per WP:BOLD. One small note: it's helpful to other editors to include an edit summary with each edit, so that your edits can be tracked and vandals can be identified. Freshacconci 13:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info. Speaking of vandals, when are you going to add back the link to my writing that you removed? This writing stretches over four decades, was published in a variety of journals, and is part of the history of experimental film. Fredcamper 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A plan of action 

message: The article still prominently features a summary of a review from Art in America. I didn't locate it in the online Art in America index. Was it an opinion piece? Does it really merit the weight put on it here? At any rate, it should really carry a citation. AllyD 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Art in America?

message: I just slapped a tag on the article as a whole.  I tried to clean parts of it up—I removed some of the most speculative and biased lines—but I'm afraid it needs a real rewrite.  It's written like an analytical paper, not like an encyclopedic entry.  MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research or unverified claims 

message: An IP's set of additions on experimental film in Spain have been reverted which I think was right, in that they were unsourced and placed largely out of time in the midst of a chronological section. That said, it does look like there could be a future addition of material on José Val del Omar: . AllyD (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish additions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Experimental film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305073958/http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/festivals/02/21/posner.html to http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/festivals/02/21/posner.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Experimental film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051210221820/http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/experimental.jsp to http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/experimental.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, folks. I think the list of "Notable experimental filmmakers" makes no sense on this page.  The article is full of notable filmmakers who are not on this list! There is no clear criteria for inclusion in such a list. We already have the category Category:Experimental_filmmakers and only notable people get WP articles, so the list here serves no purpose.  I think we should remove the list. What do you think? Cheers, Doctormatt (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, nobody replied, so I removed the list. Doctormatt (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove list of notable experimental filmmakers? 

message: I can't help thinking this video )the second one down on the right) is very explicit - has anyone actually watched it? For example the very graphic fellatio sequence bottom right hand beginning 4:53-
I understand this film is meant to be experimental but I am surprised wikipedia guidelines allows it. Of course it also exists separately on its own page also. 2A00:23C7:608E:A401:EC9A:B86B:1C39:ABE3 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOTCENSORED. MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank's cock (1993) by Mike Hoolboom video