Film Experiments Outside the Mainstream

The extent and scope of the experimentation on film leads me to believe that it is intended for a very small and specific niche of viewers. The reason being is that the main purpose of this experimentation was to go against the mainstream techniques that was present at the time. It is my understanding that mainstream techniques include a narrative structure, composition, an effort to be visually appealing, a methodological cohesiveness, and being relatable (among other things). Experimental films are everything but.

With that being said, to go against the mainstream would mean a random consortium of juxtaposition solely for the sake of being different. To go against narrative would be to make a senseless sequence of frames that mean nothing. Disregarding composition eliminates the desire to make appealing images. And without caring for visual appeal or relatability gives them free reign to do whatever they want no matter how nonsensical or jarring. I understand that they have the artistic freedom to do all this and simply create. But in that regard, since their goal is to just go against the grain, how can you determine what is "good" and of value? Going by mainstream standards, its not. But even so, there is no standard to go by since the only thing that matters would be for them to be non-mainstream.

People admire art if it is beautiful, or meaningful, or if it requires a skill, or a creativity unseen before, to say the least. The work described here in this article most likely would not be comprehended this way by most people. Which begs my question - Is their art one that is only done for their sake of expressing themselves (non-mainstream like), and if people don't get it, will they just say " oh, they just don't understand me"? I would compare the experimental films to some of today's contemporary art. The exhibits in the galleries where in the middle of the room is just a messed up bed and they added some paint. Or a mishmash of everyday found objects glued together that resembles a grade schooler's diorama. In these instances, they go against what we consider art. They go against mainstream, but does that make it good?

And to clarify, I'm not against experimental films. I think some of it is good art - within my definition of the subject. But as a whole, the mainstream has been developed because those techniques are ones that resonate with us or is naturally appealing in some way. And for experimental films, they are consciously rejecting those visual elements that are proved appealing, and going the opposite way. It should be no surprise then, if people also start feeling the opposite way (of mainstream) towards them.