After last night's showing of Persistence, I attended the workshop given by Daniel Eisenberg at the U of R this afternoon. I must say that I normally am less apt to sit through an afternoon of experimental film than most any other genre, though Eisenberg's work certainly defies that pure delineation. There is so much work out there that passes itself off as experimental, and not in a good way. After viewing the film last night however, and having had the opportunity to hear some explanation of the thinking behind the work from the artist himself, I was much more willing to further explore his work and hear more about his methods.

It was interesting to hear his perspective on source material, his utter reverence for the subject matter, above his own personal concerns. I have embarked on the process of my thesis in a very different way, moving from a method in which I attempted to remove myself from the work, quite literally, to a storyline in which I play a central role. I am still sorting this out, but having listened to Eisenberg's perspective, I think there is validity in both.

One of the more salient points in the discussion stemmed from Eisenberg's introduction of the oral history vs. the traditional historical documentation. His films hinge on this principle of using the oral history to find the story, giving, as he puts it, "a real place" to the mind's image. The use of archival material reflects this in a different way than it perhaps was intended to originally, whether taken from documentary, newsreel or military footage for instance, he provides new context, finding and preserving moments of humanity that might otherwise be lost. This is paramount to his own personal feelings of the subject matter at times, allowing his audience the freedom to draw their own conclusions, not hemmed in by an overarching agenda set forth by the maker.

At the same time, the voice of the maker is always present, which is evident in the way that the material is assembled, and certainly in the choice of the materials that are drawn from. Eisenberg spoke of using materials in such a way that the generational aspect is present, in the sense that when the material is reproduced, there is evidence of that reproduction. The archival footage is re-shot, re-cropped, optically printed repeatedly, changing the look and thereby leaving the makers imprint.

I'll leave this post with perhaps the most important point that was made during today's session. Mr. Eisenberg posed the question that is on the mind of most, if not all artists, and that is "by what authority do I have to speak?" And isn't it true that we all question at one point or another whether or not what we have to say is valid? As he also mentioned, it is a lucky few who could claim not to have pondered that query. But it is by making work that each of us have elected to answer that call, whether the work is highly regarded and lauded for its poignancy, or maligned as a failure, it is our purpose as artists to find a way to communicate whatever it is that drives us to create.