Daniel Fitzpatrick is a PhD candidate, a film curator and a writer. He is co-curator of PLASTIK along with Jenny Brady, Sibyl Montague and Fifi Smith.
Can you talk us through some of the main ideas behind PLASTIK and how the festival got its name?
I feel like we settled on the name PLASTIK because it spoke to ideas we had been considering generally about the ‘plasticity’ of the image, projected or otherwise. Equally, it seemed to suggest certain shifts with regard to artists working with the moving-image, as we now try to distinguish moving-image works from those produced in more traditional media, in relation to that slightly outmoded but affectionate term ‘the plastic arts’. We can acknowledge, for example, the necessity of thinking about moving image works, particularly through their placement in galleries or museums, in terms of their moresculptural aspects. And finally, PLASTIK also seemed to provoke, for us, thoughts about the material/immaterial, manifested in a number of capacities throughout the festival programme, not least in the work of David Gatten.
What is exciting about the initial idea for the festival is that it came about through collaboration.Initially it began through the Critical Forum, a discussion, a discussion group for artists working with the moving image that has been running for two years now. I think the idea for the festival was first raised publicly at an open discussion addressing artists’ moving image that was put together by Maeve Connolly at the IFI last year. There were many different voices at that meeting and this collaborative aspect quickly became a defining aspect. We were interested from the beginning in exploring new possibilities that could come about through collaboration, in terms of both individuals and institutions, including key partnerships with Temple Bar Gallery and Studios and the IFI.
The London-based arts organisation LUX has been a partner with the festival since its inception. How instrumental has this been?
LUX, and Benjamin Cooke in particular, have been a vital aspect of the festival since the very first whispers of it being a possibility. At that same public discussion I mentioned earlier, some of the issues raised by, and around, artists working within the moving-image were related to archival issues, to preservation as well as exhibition and distribution. How, for example, might these works continue to be made visible beyond their initial lives and how might they be historicised? How could the works be made accessible, not only for curators, but equally for researchers and the public as a whole, and how might they be treated more critically? These issues, particularly those around preservation, are enormously complex and can quickly seem overwhelming. LUX however offers us a possible model through which we can begin to access a wider set of potentials for art and the moving image. One of our hopes with PLASTIK is that it might help establish a forum through which these issues could receive more serious consideration.
You have curated a screening of 16mm works by David Gatten whose films are rarely shown. How did you first come across his work?
The last decade plus has been kind of a boom period with regard to a revival of interest in avant-garde and experimental cinema, something I have tried to consider through my own research as well as through the work I do with Experimental Film Club, which is a monthly screening event at the IFI. Gatten would be, for me, one of several important filmmakers at the heart of this current resurgence, part of a diverse group of artist filmmakers that would also include Phil Solomon, Nathaniel Dorsky, Peter Tscherkassky and Sadie Benning.
Gatten’s work connects a number of diverse worlds, incorporating literary history and the visual arts but also a productive and extended lineage of experimental and avant-garde practice. His films exist entirely their own of course, and I think they would be appreciated by audiences regardless of interest or background. But, personally, I was initially drawn to his works for their suggestion of a shared history with the works of iconic avant-garde filmmakers like Hollis Frampton and Stan Brakhage. I find Gatten’s works to be highly articulate in this regard but I can also locate a generosity in his work that is unmistakable. This combination is what gives his films their immediacy, an immediacy very much on display in this collection of 16mm works.
There is a strong element of mediation involved with the works being shown at the festival, either from the artists themselves, or from guest curators and researchers. What role does this have in shaping the audience experience?
Well, from the outset I think we approached the festival from a position where we really wanted to mark the importance of a collective, shared experience – cinema! The idea of this unique possibility was represented through the festival concept, as distinct for example from exhibitions taking place over a longer period at which one can come and go. This was extremely important. Many of the works being screened at the festival will not have been screened here previously (Gatten’s film The Extravagant Shadows, for example, is a European premiere) and a good majority of them will be unlikely to turn up anywhere else soon. This means that if people want to engage with what we think are important and impactful works they have to do so in the ‘here and now’.
The festival announces, then, a different set of possibilities through which we can consider artists work in the moving-image. Also, by placing the role of curators in such a central position, through programmes created exclusively for the festival by curators who will be present for the screenings, audiences will not only view these works in a collective environment, in which they’ll mostly be experiencing the works for the first time, but also through the perspective of someone who has chosen to put this group of works together at this particular time, but also through the perspective of someone who has chosen to put this group of works together at this particular time. It is our hope that this aspect allows for a heightened level of engagement for audiences making visible aspects often left obscure.
