Mothlight, Stan Brakhage’s Self-cremation: From Poetic Language to Use - Text 5
Nevertheless, the organic side of the practice behind Mothlight comes from the principle of self-representation, as Stan Brakhage is projecting himself onto these moths that fly towards their final destination as they approach their obsession. Perception is primarily what guides the choice of method in a Brakhage film. While 16mm film is an essential support material for him, in this particular case he has chosen transparent film so that light passes through the entire film. This light passes not only through the film stock, but also through the moths’ wings and the dried plants. In addition, the projector’s lamp becomes a brazier at the end of the film, when the moths increasingly resemble pieces of burnt flesh. In fact artistic decisions relative to technical devices are not limited to recording, developing or editing the film. There is also its exhibition. Showing Brakhage’s films with a 16mm projector pays greater tribute to the film than any kind of digitising (including those discussed in this parcours). In 16mm, flames burn brighter.
Conclusion
To conclude, it is important to note that it would be possible to go further in this analysis by means of more precise criteria in order to be able to create a more fine-grained typology of the terms used by Brakhage and to better grasp his relations with technical questions. The still fragmentary nature of this demonstration echoes the work of experimental filmmakers, each of whose gestures eludes established rules and anticipated effects. The goal of the present text has been, among other things, to understand Brakhage’s creative flights from the way in which he speaks of his work, taking a comprehensive approach and without denaturing his artistic project. Every attempt to theorise the creative process of an experimental artist such as Brakhage must avoid the trap of believing that it can be grasped in all its details. Most often, in such an attempt one loses one’s way rather than finding one’s way. The goal here, rather, has been to find a balance between, on the one hand, what he says about his creative process, particularly through the use of terms such as “vision”, and, on the other hand, the equipment he uses. By analysing Mothlight from this perspective, the only real conclusion possible is to propose an path to the accessibility of bricolage for making experimental films. In other words, it appears to the present author that linking the democratisation of the material with thinking as a bricoleur is fundamental to Brakhage’s practice. This aspect, therefore, is what appears to me to be important to bring out in a technical analysis of his work. With great sensibility and talent, Brakhage has employed some of the best-known techniques and devices in cinema, which are potentially within reach of everyone. His films were produced by an individual with limited means. It is enough to have access to the most mediocre film camera, to a few hundred metres of raw film stock, and to a scraper and a brush, or even to some insects and flowers.
