Vale Malcolm Le Grice (1940-1924)

We, Lucas and I, are so saddened by the passing of Malcolm Le Grice. Lucas and Malcolm first met in 2003. Reconnecting in Sydney in 2010, Malcolm told Lucas he felt it was time ‘hang up his boots’ on performing Horror Film 1. Since then, we’ve been in intermittent contact with Malcolm, lots in the past couple of years. 

Malcolm was aware of the work we had been doing with his London Film Makers Co-op colleague Guy Sherwin. The output of our work with Guy was (Wo)Man With Mirror a user’s manual (2009), a fold out paper guide that steps the user through making a performance of Guy’s Man With Mirror. 

Malcolm’s Horror Film 1 has been seen by many people and as Malcolm has described it, it’s a crowd pleaser. I recall him saying he always programmed it last because he found works that followed it had a hard time making an impact. Over the past several years, Lucas and I, our data science friend in France, Raja Appuswamy, and Malcolm and his son Oliver have spent lots of time on video calls, talking about the evolving manual for Horror Film 1. We have been so lucky to roadtest this while Malcolm has been about. Performances using the evolving manual have been created by Cinzia Nistico in Europe. There have also been some in Canberra. 

Our Horror Film 1 community has gathered together around transmitting the work, making sure it can continue beyond Malcolm. He has been at the centre but other people have also been important to Lucas and I in our Le Grice history endeavours. Of course, David Curtis and Steven Ball. Also on this non-exhaustive list are Mike Leggett, Mark Williams and Mark Webber. My own view is that Mark Webber’s work in the 2000s was crucial to the visibility of these British film artists.

So fast forward to 2013, here you see Malcolm, Lucas, me and our families having dinner in Loddiswell near the Le Grices’ village in Devon. 

Enthusiastic hospitality is a quality I associate with Malcolm. That’s also a quality Lucas and I hold dear, I believe. Some qualities of enthusiastic hospitality are getting really caught up in the work and wanting to share the experience of getting caught up in the work with others.  All this adds up to empowerment – participation is a political, and therefore, vital action. Making work is one way to participate but experiencing work, being part of its audience, is another. This is quite a generous way to think about work, it factors in a relationship with an audience or a viewer from the start. This evens out the power relationships in what I think is a productive way. 

We had the good fortune to get to know Malcolm when he was thinking about legacies and how to pass them along. Of course, we have been interested in that for some time so our relationship was positive in every way. And this has been helped along greatly by Oliver, Malcolm’s son.

And here we are having lunch with Judith and Malcolm at their home in Devon. Note the impromptu furnishing of hats for everyone and a glass of wine. And in the image above at Loddiswell, you can see us with all of both our families. The Le Grice hospitality was extended not just to us but to our entourages! 

So that’s enthusiastic hospitality.

The other quality I associate with Malcolm is radical sharing. In talking through how to pass Horror Film 1 on to others over 2022-24, it’s been crystal clear that the state Malcolm wants for his work is that it circulates. The words of Malcolm’s we’ve included in the Horror Film 1 instructions are these:

“I think of [Horror Film 1] like jazz. You can have a tune and when you start to play it and improvise on it, it’s something new and it belongs to you, the performer. It’s like a skeleton around which something can happen. And I’m not precious about the copyright of it. Once you’ve performed it, it belongs in the world, right? It belongs to the world.

And there’s also the fact that what I did was very random, really, and it was very influenced by all kinds of stuff in the situation. It wasn’t just me. William Raban, Gill Eatherly, Annabel [Nicolson], we were all working together, we were messing about doing stuff together. 

And also the Film Co-op itself [the London Film Makers’ Co-op] … something that’s very different, particular, about the London Film Co-op – [is that] people were not precious about ideas … The ideas were thrashed around, they were shared, they were inter-influenced …it’s a different sort of culture that is in a discourse like jazz and improvisation. It can change and things don’t belong quite simply to one person. For me my work is part of a public discourse really. I’m not precious about it, if somebody wants to preserve it and work on it or be influenced by it or modify it, change it.

I should do what I need to do [to write down instructions for the work or a letter to a future user as Louise put it] to make it possible for you but after that, it’s up to you, if you want to do something different with it … – I leave that to you, it’s not up to me.” 

 

So now’s the time to share your Le Grices with audiences. If you have some, organise a screening. Paddy Hay at the Artist Film Workshop in Melbourne is going to do this in late Jan, using the Australian National Film and Sound Archive’s Non-Theatrical Lending Collection. Berlin Horse (1970) is not available (why is that, we wonder) but Little Dog for Roger (1967), Witchurch Down (1972) and Blind White Duration (1967) are all on Paddy’s list. 

If you do make a screening, it would be kind to share what you do on the internet and make it findable. Be a bit of a librarian and use some hashtags and include Malcolm’s name in the title. That way the Le Grice family can find what you do – I know they will be delighted to know about this activity. 

I am hoping to do more with a recent work of Malcolm’s, Eye of the Dragon. The soundtrack is by his grandson Benjamin. This is a three screen work but it does have a single channel iteration. I showed that single channel work in Canberra in May 2024 to a warm response from our small but enthusiastic audience.

For me personally as a creative person, I felt quite connected to Malcolm. He was always making work – using his phone or his iPad or drawing. When we visited in 2013, I recall he had been holidaying in Greece making iPad drawings. He’d also just made a new video work on his phone during a train trip with Mark Webber. Over this time 2022-24 when we’ve been talking regularly, Malcolm’s often been showing us new images and of course, he shared Eye of the Dragon. The conjecture I put on this and that I connect to myself is that for some of us the day is not done without a new piece of art in it. Art might be the wrong word, but some sort of creative output.

The final thing I want to say about Malcolm was that he was capable across so many fields of endeavour – he didn’t just make work, he built the early developing equipment for the London Film Makers’ Co-op, literally timber rotating tanks. (My favourite account is in Mark Webber’s Shoot Shoot Shoot published by Lux for the LFMC 50th in 2016, check out Malcolm in his own words on page 104. Malcolm also explains his role in bringing into existence the LFMC as an organisation that did more than screenings.) He also acquired the very important Debrie printer. Those who have experience in film preservation know how precious these printers are because they can cope with shrinkage and other kinds of damage. I did have a photo of the printer taken at Now.here in 2013 in London but I can’t find that one. 

And alongside his creative and engineering feats, Malcolm was also a writer. Real TIME/SPACE (1972) is still an article Lucas and I refer to often. And many bookshelves of experimental film people have a copy of his compilation Experimental Cinema in the Digital Age (2001). It was also plain to Lucas and me that Malcolm is much loved by his family, we’ve learnt this from our time spent with his son Oliver. Thank you, Malcolm, for your generous art and your generous sharing.

Documentation from UK Le Grice exhibition

Recently we had the pleasure to contribute to the DNA:AND exhibition at Velarde Gallery in England. The gallery has kindly sent a few photos for our records.

Here is the media release about TLC’s work for the exhibition.

Our users manual for Horror Film 1 was encoded on synthetic DNA in collaboration with Associate Professor Raja Appuswamy of Eurecom. The DNA was enclosed in a stainless steel capsule.

horror film 1 dna capsule

close up of capsule

This was displayed in the exhibition on a small velour cushion under a perspex box, together with the media release. (Click on the image below to see larger size):

dna capsule under perspex box in exhibition

This DNA capsule was displayed upon a plinth, with the Horror Film 1 timeline poster print mounted on the side:

installation photo of horror film 1 archive at velarde gallery

To see the full size poster print, click here. (The graphic design for this poster is by John Causley).

Here is an online exhibition catalogue produced by Velarde Gallery, which includes our DNA capsule (scroll about half way down that web page).

A draft manual about making manuals…

We recently received an email requesting advice on how to make a users manual for the re-enactment of a historical artwork.

here are a few notes:

We have a few academic papers:

this is from before we made the user manual for horror film 1:

Performance Matters Journal: Re-enactment of Malcolm Le Grice’s “Horror Film 1”

This is more recent and explicitly discusses the HF1 user manual (briefly)

Re-enactment, Users Manuals and DNA Storage: methods for media art preservation

recent blog post about the HF1 manual

Horror Film 1 – Users Manual (version 1.0)

you can also see our 2009 user manual for (wo)Man With Mirror

(Wo)man with Mirror

louise’s phd thesis (see chapter 4 on user manuals)
https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/en/publications/tending-the-archive-how-re-use-of-ephemeral-artworks-contributes-

some key ideas:

  • building trust through socialising with the artist
  • oral history interviews
  • explicit learning about choreography and technical things
  • research on / with the artist in archives if available
  • trying out the re-enactment for ourselves
  • checking back with the artist to fill in gaps
  • writing a manual FOR OURSELVES so we remember what we did (make it easier next time)
  • writing a manual with the view to pass it on to someone else (technical stuff, contextual stuff, and stuff about the ‘spirit of the work’
  • trying the draft manual out with someone else
  • noting what needs changing based on that
  • make the changes that need to be made
  • when another person tries it out, documenting their attempt and including it in the next iteration of the user manual
    etc (ad infinitum, never finished…)

Louise adds:

I used the insights Lucas and I have gained to work with an Australian artist to do something just like you’re planning – to make a manual herself. I wrote a blog post about that:
https://nga.gov.au/stories-ideas/manual-making-for-ephemeral-art/

I think the keys are:

  • you need to observe yourself making the work and keep notes about that. That’s what becomes the manual.
  • You need to try to be ‘true’ to the work, that’s your job.
  • You need to find your way to capture your observations that make sense to you as a record of that experience.
  • As Lucas says ‘writing a manual FOR OURSELVES so we remember what we did (make it easier next time)’.
  • For me, the letter (or some communication) to a future user from the original artist is crucial, a key finding in my PhD is that without that permission, people feel awkward to just go ahead and use the manual.
  • We’re still working on a way to really make it do the ‘ad infinitum’ bit, ie to get users to make a contribution back to the manual, that’s what really strengthens it.

What’s in the DNA capsule for ‘Horror Film 1’?

Raja and I met back in 2021 when I chaired a panel he was in at iPRES. Our session was online and we had time to chat beforehand. I’d read up about his paper on DNA storage. I knew something about this because I saw a great presentation about it from former National Film and Sound Archive director Jan Muller. Muller loved DNA storage and he organised for Cathy Freeman’s Olympic win to be stored on DNA and then decoded from that source for display on the Opera House sails in Sydney. I don’t have specific dates for this work but it was in the period around 2016. Somehow I discovered Raja was looking for a case from cultural heritage to show the potential of DNA storage and that’s how we began a dialogue about the work Lucas and I have been doing with Malcolm to make a user’s manual for Horror Film 1 (building on our project Wo(Man) with Mirror with Guy Sherwin and lessons from work with Lynn Loo on Autumn Fog). 

Fast forward to Feb 2023 and Raja was ready to actually encode some content on DNA. What went in there? Here’s a screenshot from the Dropbox that Raja used to store all the final content

The document ‘Abstract’ explains more. Here’s what it says:

What’s contained in this DNA archive is a test of the capabilities of DNA storage focusing on the transmission of an artwork from the 1970s to future audiences. This artwork involves some moving image and a performer. It is considered a landmark of this kind of practice, known as expanded cinema. The work, Horror Film 1, was made by a leading artist of the London Film Makers’ Co-op Malcolm Le Grice in 1971. What’s in this package is

1. a text document, background and instructions to make a performance of Horror Film 1

2. a video explaining the work of Australian artists Louise Curham and Lucas Ihlein who have carried out this work with Malcolm’s blessing to find a way to transmit Malcolm’s artwork to future performers.

3. a video documenting performances by Lucas, artist Nicci Haynes using the instructions; a performance by Louise from 2014 and a performance by Malcolm.

4. a video transfer of the 16mm film loos, crucial for the re-staging of Horror Film 1.

This experiment was ideated when researcher Raja Appuswamy and archivist, artist, researcher Louise Curham met at the International Conference for Digital Preservation (iPRES) in 2019. This work was finalized as a pilot experiment in Horison Europe FET project Oligoarchive.

Funds from project OligoArchive, the Canberra Art Biennial and the Centre for Creative and Cultural Research at the University of Canberra made this work possible.

 

How does this connect to the items in Raja’s file:

   I did try to update that title of that last file – that is an example of what not to do in digital preservation!

Here’s that correspondence with Raja.

HF1 Curham Appuswamy PDF of manual for DNA, here’s the bit where I talk about re-titling:

Emails between Louise Curham and Raja Appuswamy March 2023

And here’s the bit where I spell out what’s going in the capsule.

HF1 Curham Appuswamy early 2023 preparing final files for DNA storage 10 Feb to 7 March

More info

Item 2 the video explainer – you can see a longer version of that here on Vimeo https://vimeo.com/774945752

Item 3 performance documentation – you can see some of Lucas’s performance here (CBR 2022, in the Canberra Art Biennial) https://vimeo.com/775641088 and some of Nicci’s performance here (2022, Canberra Art Biennial) https://vimeo.com/775994398

Re Item 4, I have very high res DPX files made from loops that Lucas and I had. They were quite scratched. I felt it was super important to do that transfer as that’s a bit that could potentially confuse future users. It’s important to check in the manual (item 1) about the source for the loops, Love Story another of Malcolm’s films.

 

 

The Provocation of Synthetic DNA

raja with synthetic dna capsule
Raja Appuswamy shows capsule of synthetic DNA

I’m Thinking about the provocation of sending info 1000 years into the future in the synthetic DNA capsule.

This provocation emerges from our collaboration with Raja Appuswamy, a data scientist at Eurecom in France, who is storing our Horror Film 1 Users Manual and associated documentation materials on synthetic DNA.

Raja is working with our project as a demonstration of a ‘use case’ for synthetic DNA storage – the idea is that items of intangible cultural heritage (like Horror Film 1) can be sent into the future as an act of preservation, or archiving.
Continue reading “The Provocation of Synthetic DNA”

Re-enactment, Users Manuals and DNA Storage: methods for media art preservation

Here’s a paper that we recently presented in Meanjin Brisbane for the 2024 ISEA conference (International Symposium on Electronic Art). We presented as part of the 4th Summit on Media Art Archiving.

It’s called “Re-enactment, Users Manuals and DNA Storage: methods for media art preservation”, co-authored by Louise Curham, Lucas Ihlein, Raja Appuswamy.

About the authors:
Louise and Lucas are Teaching and Learning Cinema (TLC), and Raja is a data scientist in France at Eurecom.

The paper is really just a brief intro to the project we’re working on at the moment.

Abstract

This paper discusses a novel approach to media art preservation led by Australian artist-archivist group Teaching and Learning Cinema, using the field of expanded cinema as a case study.Works of 1970s expanded cinema (which combine celluloid film projection with live performance) are typical of the inherent “lossiness” of much 20th and 21st century media art. While offering richly embodied experiences in their moment of enactment, expanded cinema’s ephemerality means that it risks falling out of circulation and thus becoming unavailable for future experience. Teaching and Learning Cinema, over the past 20 years, has evolved a methodology for preserving works of expanded cinema, featuring three overlapping approaches. First, intergenerational transfer is attempted: in this phase, younger artists learn about the work from its originators, and produce live re-enactments. During the second phase, a users manual is assembled, encoding the artwork as a set of instructions with the intention of making it available for future generations of performers and audiences. Thirdly, the archived material from phases one and two is stored on synthetic DNA, with a view to transmission into the deep future (perhaps 1000 years). While the first two phases are urgent, preventing the work’s immediate extinction, the third phase is speculative, broadening the enquiry to explore the question of cultural heritage across much longer
timeframes.

Keywords

Media art preservation; time-based art preservation; archival practice; preservation; DNA storage; manual making; expanded cinema; re-enactment; media art history.

Farewell Peter Mudie

Peter Mudie working with Buwantaro and Albie Thoms, processing 16mm film – photo by Martin Heine, 1999.
Peter Mudie working with Buwantaro and Albie Thoms, processing 16mm film – photo by Martin Heine, 1999. (Click on the photo to go to Peter’s article about Albie Thoms.)

This week we lost a VIP in the experimental cinema community. Peter Mudie was a teacher at University of Western Australia, where I studied fine arts in the mid-1990s. Shortly after he arrived in Perth (from Canada via London) he set up a Super-VHS editing suite, and began teaching the history and practice of experimental film and video. It was a revelation.

Each week we would watch films from the canon, dating back 100 years, right up to the present. Often Peter had obtained celluloid prints on 16mm, and he would lace the projector up in front of us, cigarette dangling from his lips. His drawling, chuckling style of teaching, infused with marxist politics, was infectious.
Continue reading “Farewell Peter Mudie”

What scholars of manuals have to say

As we finalise an article about the manual for Horror Film 1 and the potential to use DNA as a storage medium for the manual versions and additional components, we have gone looking for literature about manuals.

I’ve learnt that making procedures is called ‘procedural discourse’. David Farkas writes about this back in 1999. It is about ‘written and spoken discourse that guides people in performing a task-in other words, it is “how to” communication.’ His article aims to set out what makes a procedure a procedure, he sets out the relationships, and persistent logic in making procedures, as he describes it. Here’s a short summary – we’re in the territory of purposeful human behaviour – people wanting to get stuff done, usually around a quite clearly defined goal. He defines getting stuff done more eloquently – he calls it accomplishing tasks and he clarifies that actually means changing things.
Continue reading “What scholars of manuals have to say”

Let’s talk about expanded cinema – Poster session SEAPAVAA 2023

Dr Louise Curham from Curtin University’s iSchool starts a dialogue with audiovisual archivists of South East Asia about expanded cinema.

Here’s the recording of this talk:

 

And here’s what I say (not quite identical but pretty close)

SEAPAVAA talk 2023 Bangkok slide 1

Hi everyone. Thanks very much for inviting me to be part of SEAPAVAA 2023. I want to begin by acknowledging I’m joining you from the lands of the Ngunawal people, the Aboriginal traditional owners of this land I’m on in Canberra.

Continue reading “Let’s talk about expanded cinema – Poster session SEAPAVAA 2023”