The one name I recognized in the article is Bill Viola, whom I was exposed to in my transmedia studio class last year. From what I was told, he is considered one of the greatest video artists of all time. From what I know about video art, I could believe it, because from merely a craftsmanship standpoint his work seems to be better than most others, since most video art looks like a giant mess of random, and dumb, shit. His stuff, from the clips I remember then and the clips I'm looking at now seems like they could be impactful and may be cool to watch. But, like the rest of the genre, there is a severe flaw, most of it doesn't make sense when you watch it. Now, I think this is one of the points this article is trying to make, that these new forms of narrative are meant to defy the prexisting forms of narration, so, "of course they are going to be harder to follow". But, there is a problem with that, generally, any piece of art that extends over a period of time is going to demand a reason for watching by the viewer. If it doesn't make sense, then why the hell should people sit there and waste their valuable time watching something. Watching something isn't fun for the sake of watching, people do things (for the most part) because they think what they're doing is going to be a benefit somehow either to themselves or to others. Watching something that doesn't make any sense to the viewer means that they either can do two things, get nothing out their narrative experience, or try to understand and make the most of their experience.
Where does this lead? Well, how do we get to the point where these new narrative systems actually thrive like the current mainstream narrative forms, as opposed to surviving through their small hardcore followings. I don't believe the people making these new narrative works of art have bad intentions or anything, but the truth is, while I don't believe the artists have bad intentions, I also believe that they think their artworks should be completely done on their own terms, without any respect to the viewer. That's idiotic. Just like how D.W. Griffith came up with various editing strategies and shot techniques that enabled viewers of Birth of a Nation and Intolerance to understand what was going on, ultimately leading to the state of Hollywood films today, people working in these new narrative forms have to do the same damn thing.
Entertainment, which is what narrative forms fall under, has a function. Just like a car or a table or a paperclip, entertainment does have a function. Like how a car is used as transportation, but also has secondary functions such as showing social status, entertainment's primary function is to entertain and has secondary functions as well, like teaching a lesson or something. Also, to create these items such as a car, a table, or a paperclip, you have to have specific ingredients put together in a certain way to make the thing work. Entertainment obviously has a wider range of ingredients to work with and can end up with far different results, but there STILL IS a right and wrong way to do things.
Why the hell does somebody want to watch an excerpt from a film that is slowed down immensely to the point where the pre-existing narrative is gone, who cares about the new narratives that pop up? It's not fun and it's lesson is not worth the time spent to experience it, therefore it is failed entertainment. Using these car, table, and paperclip analogies, it's no different than a carpenter making a table with thin balsa wood. It fails it's job. You can look into it if you want and try to find the positives out of it, but in reality, human beings do not live eternally, they certainly can spend their time more efficiently. So if the people making these new narrative forms actually want their pieces interesting past the fact its a new experience/ spectacle, then you better make concessions to make it understandable, in whatever way that is possible. The excuse that it's a "different experience" can only last for so long before it needs to stand on its own merit.
P.S. This isn't attacking all the narrative forms found in the article, just the ones that seem to go against narrative conventions without respect for the viewer.
