LOGBOOK: RESEARCHING THE

WORK OF PETER TSCHERKASSKY

Daniel Copping

Bournemouth University
BA Film
Contents
Aim ............................................................................................ 2
Objectives ................................................................................. 2
Context Essay ............................................................................ 3
Methodology ............................................................................ 5
Discussion Essay........................................................................ 6
Conclusion ................................................................................ 8
Recommendations .................................................................... 8
References ................................................................................ 9
Bibliography ............................................................................ 10
Appendices ............................................................................. 11
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Aim
- Establish an alternate way to recreate Tscherkasskys film effects

Objectives
- Conduct research to understand the analogue methods that Tscherkassky used to create
effects in his films
- Research digital techniques that can be used to provide alternatives to those used by
Tscherkassky
- Critically analyse the effects of Tscherkassky to understand the reasons behind his choices
and the effect this has on story
- Develop digital techniques that create a similar effect on story that Tscherkassky uses his
analogue effects for
- Compare and discuss the differences between the analogue and digital processes
Context Essay
Peter Tscherkassky is an avant-garde filmmaker who creates experimental films using found
footage. To do this, Tscherkassky uses a process he calls manufrackture, an archaic
technique (Horwarth, 2003) which emphasizes the creative and productive forms of breaking
that energize his work. (Cahill, 2008, 91). At LUFF 2015, Tscherkassky described this process,
stating how he starts with an idea of what he wants to represent, and decides on the footage to
use. He learns this by heart over half a year, and then places one metre of unexposed raw stock
on cardboard with a metre of selected found footage placed on top. After this, Tscherkassky
uses a laser pointer to manually copy parts of the frame he wants, adds another metre of found
footage and does the same, up to 5 times with his film Outer Space (1999). This is then left to
process in his dark room overnight (LUFF.TV, 2015).
Tscherkassky describes that he [attempts] to create art works that can only be made with film.
In other words, if there were nothing other than the computer, hard disk, and magnetic tape,
then these works would simply not exist. (Cahill qt. Tscherkassky, 2008, 91). This suggests that
he believes using film allows him to create unique pieces of art and portray unique messages
that couldnt be carried out through digital methods. Focusing on the second and third films in
Tscherkasskys CinemaScope trilogy, Pierson describes how In Outer Space and Dream Work,
the critical work of analysis begins, in fact, with the intensification of the sensory experience of
cinema.(2008, 44). He describes how the special effects created within the frame create the
conditions for an experience of anxiety, tension, and suspense, as spectators try to both
determine what is happening, and to make sense of their experience (2008, 44).
Outer Space (1999), the most famous film in Tscherkasskys CinemaScope trilogy, uses found
footage from the film The Entity (Furie, 1983). This is because Tscherkassky wanted to rework
the film solely upon its plot summary: an invisible force sexually terrorizes a woman in her
California ranch house, composing a new narrative based around the notion of the film
material integrating itself into the narrative, attacking the protagonist (Cahill, 2008, 96).
Because of this, Outer Space allows for an analytical breakdown of film itself, and allows for the
use of the medium to tell the story instead of the content it shows. For example, in the film
when Barbara Hersheys character is attacked, the physical film goes from being slightly
distorted to having much more obvious visual and auditory distortion. This creates a horrific
effect through the medium instead of the content. At the end of the film, we see the character
looking into a set of mirrors and the mirrors looking back. As Horwarth describes, all mirrors
reflect the womans image, but the woman can see all the mirrors. The opponents scrutinise
each other, tensely, attentively. They could be allies. A tie. He continues to explain the meaning
of this, stating that the film is an allegory for an illusionary hero and a modern art hero
recognising each other. The illusionary hero Hershey suddenly sees the real (beyond
fiction), and the modern-art hero Tscherkassky the external force, schooled by modernist
tradition to always deconstruct illusion suddenly sees the reality of fictional images.
Horwarth summarises this by stating that Outer Space is no longer the parallel space of the
avant-garde, but in fact the world space of cinema (2003). This shows how the effects of
Tscherkasskys films are not random, but all chosen to represent a specific meaning that he is
constructing within each of his pieces of work.
The theme of questioning film itself is common in the work of Tscherkassky, his films
[interrogating] what the cinematic apparatus might be like if it were truly concerned with the
sensations of light and sound rather than realistic representations or narrative plausibility. (von
Dassanowky, 2011, 266-267). To conclude, Tscherkasskys films use the medium of film itself to
tell their stories instead of purely the content within it, and through manually editing found
footage he creates new stories and meanings in films.
Methodology
The artefact uses a scene from The Shining (Kubrick, 1980) and digital editing to recreate the style of
Tscherkassky. The initial thought for the artefact was to recreate his effects through digital editing,
using found footage like Tscherkassky does within his films, but further research lead to the
discovery that Tscherkassky is a believer of analogue film being vastly superior to digital. He stated
that he [attempts] to create art works that can only be made with film. In other words, if there
were nothing other than the computer, hard disk and magnetic tape, then these works would simply
not exist. (Cahill qt. Tscherkassky, 2008, 91). This quote became the basis of the artefact, which
represents the analogue v digital debate through Tscherkasskys style. It makes use of distorted
audio and visual editing to represent the battle between the two mediums, with Jack representing
the analogue film and Wendy representing digital film. This gets increasingly distorted as Jack gets
closer to Wendy, until she cuts him and ends the conflict. This reflects the same ways Tscherkassky
uses more extreme editing when the conflict takes place within Outer Space (1999).

A range of effects were used to create this artefact:

- Video Effects
o Added flicker to make it appear like its playing on an old projector, similar to the
flickering of Tscherkasskys films
o Added effect to make it appear to have digital distortion, like that of an image
breaking up, which gets worse as the film goes on
o Made scenes with Jack appear to be shown on an old film reel which is damaged,
with scratches, white spots and black spots, as well as in a smaller resolution
o Caused distortion every time Jack hits the doors with his axe
o Made it appear like the film is skipping through frames, giving the effect of seeing
the film strip moving in projector, similar to Tscherkassky making the film reel
appear in parts of his films
o In some sections, added a flipped version of the on-screen image, to recreate some
images in Outer Space (1999)
o Added extreme image distortion when Jack breaks down the door
o Added film burn at the end to represent digital film beating analogue
Represents the fact that one day film will become completely irrelevant as
digital will be the superior method of filming
- Audio Effects
o Added film reel noise when the film reel stutters in the clip
o Added static sound effect which gradually gets louder as the film progresses
o Added Flanger effect to distort the audio when Jack is breaking down the bathroom
door, making it more and more distorted similar to that of Tscherkassky in Outer
Space when Hershey and the invisible force are confronting each other
o Shifted the pitch to be deeper to make it sound even more distorted and damaged
o Added an old damaged VHS sound effect to make it appear to sound more distorted
and damaged, fitting with the on screen distortion
Discussion Essay
This project has researched the work of Peter Tscherkassky, with the aim of establishing an
alternative way to recreate his film effects. This was created through use of digital methods to
recreate the style of Tscherkasskys work, especially within Outer Space (1999), his most well-known
film. By using Tscherkasskys style, the artefact recreates the anxiety and suspense portrayed within
Outer Space through its special effects successfully.
Tscherkassky stated that he [attempts] to create art works that can only be made with film. In other
words, if there were nothing other than the computer, hard disk and magnetic tape, then these
works would simply not exist. (Cahill qt. Tscherkassky, 2008, 91). This quote became the basis of the
artefact, through the interpretation that the feelings and effects Tscherkassky creates within his
films would not be possible to recreate with digital methods. This lead to the artefact being
developed to challenge this idea, through the recreation of his effects within Adobe After Effects,
instead of having to carry out the long, manual process Tscherkassky uses, challenging this reading
of the quote.
Pierson states that Whatever [Tscherkasskys] films are doing, or revealing, or making happen is
happening in and through their special effects. (2008, 31). The artefact uses visual and auditory
distortion to further the story instead of traditional storytelling methods and dialogue, representing
the debate of analogue versus digital. Through intensifying audio and visual distortion, suspense and
anxiety are created, leading to an end point, a solution to the conflict, and a calming of the scene,
with the effects ending.
Tscherkassky chose to use found footage from The Entity (Furie, 1982) because of the films plot: an
invisible force sexually terrorizes a woman in her California ranch house. [He] composed a new
narrative based around the notion of the film material integrating itself into the narrative,
attacking the protagonist. (Cahill, 2008, 96). The Shining (Kubrick, 1980) was chosen for the
artefact, and specifically the scene used, due to the visible conflict between the two characters, and
the ending with Wendy cutting Jack, allowing for the representation of digital surpassing analogue.
This completely challenges the view of Tscherkassky, as well as many other filmmakers. Gary Einhaus
states that:
Film is unique because film is a capture medium and a storage medium. So if you really want
to go back and if you've stored it under the right conditions, a hundred years later all you
have to do is shine light through it... (Side by Side, 2012)
The quote suggests that many filmmakers fear the safety of digital storage, and that film is superior
than any means of digital storage. This brings up a potential weakness to the project, as it relied on
the reading of the quote that Tscherkassky did not think his work could be recreated digitally,
whereas alternately he could be suggesting that the film would not be real in any way if simply
stored digitally. Through email contact with Tscherkassky (See Appendix A), he explained that both
are true readings of the quote. He states that that the specific production process could not be
carried out with a computer, and it would therefore be fake, and simply an imitation of the work,
with digital media imitating that of analogue. He also states that there is significance in the manual
skill and handiwork employed in the production of [his] films in this context. They were created as
artworks that unequivocally demand the use of conventional film stock: producing them in digital
form would literally be impossible. (see Appendix B, page 4). This is an unexpected finding in the
project, as the quote was only interpreted in one way, and this therefore brings significantly more
meaning to the quote. It could also be considered a weakness as the artefact imitates his work, and
therefore does not challenge his view but supports it instead. This does impact the project a little,
however it is still successfully recreating his style to represent the analogue v digital debate of which
Tscherkassky is a part of.
Another potential weakness is that the project did not have the timeframe that Tscherkassky has. He
spends half a year just learning his chosen footage off by heart (LUFF.TV, 2015), so a lot more
thought can go into the overall creation process and reasoning behind each effect he uses. Instead,
the artefact is based around one idea, meaning the effects individually have mostly no meaning like
Tscherkasskys do, yet the overall meaning of the film was developed. However, due to the length of
the project it was not possible to develop in depth meaning for every individual effect. The film
represents the digital versus analogue debate Tscherkassky is a part of in a similar style to his,
through alternate methods, and therefore this does not effect the project.

By researching Tscherkassky and creating an artefact as a response to his work, I have been able to
learn about an area of filmmaking I had not previously explored experimental film and the
lengths these filmmakers will go for art. It has also provided me with some useful insights to my own
filmmaking as well. The most useful lesson I have learnt is that editing, and the way in which
something is edited, can act as successfully as a narrative device as dialogue and character action.
Although the work of Tscherkassky and my artefact are an extreme example of this, I could take this
theory into my own films in the future and use the editing to produce such feelings to the audience.
Now I can focus a lot more on the way a scene is edited together to tell the story I want to portray.
Conclusion
The main aim of the project was to establish an alternate way to recreate Tscherkasskys film effects.
The objectives to reach this were to conduct research to understand the analogue methods
Tscherkassky uses, and then use this to research digital techniques that recreate a similar effect.
Another objective was to critically analyse Tscherkasskys effects and the effect they have on the
story, and then develop digital effects that create similar effects on story, then finally compare the
difference between the digital and analogue methods. In this project, I have discovered that
Tscherkassky carries out a long, in depth process, and puts a large amount of time and effort into
creating his effects, but that similar effects to these can also be recreated digitally in a much shorter
time. The artefact was therefore intended to challenge Tscherkassky and his view that the effects
cannot be recreated through digital methods, and also challenge his methodology. However, this
process in fact supported Tscherkassky, as he believes that using digital methods simply creates the
illusion of his effects, which actually exist, and can be touched and seen, unlike digitally stored films
like the artefact I created. Despite this, the overall intended argument I wanted audiences to take
away was that digital will one day surpass analogue, and my artefact represents this through
recreating Tscherkasskys effects digitally instead of the long manual process he carries out. This
project has also allowed me to understand the importance of editing in storytelling, and that editing
itself can be a method of narrative that is just as effective as the acting and dialogue.

Recommendations
- This project has mainly focused on the CinemaScope trilogy of Tscherkasskys work. Future
work should look at his other works, such as his earlier films
- The artefact was a digital recreation of Tscherkasskys style. Future work could look at a way
of recreating his effects much more manually, potentially in an analogue method or
animation
- Future artefacts can consider the individual meaning of effects Tscherkassky uses and find
new ways to represent this, instead of using a similar style to create an overall meaning as
this artefact does
References
Cahill, J., 2008. Anacinema: Peter Tscherkasskys Cinematic Breakdowns, Spectator [online]. 28 (2),
90-101

Horwarth, A., 2003. Singing in the Rain Supercinematography by Peter Tscherkassky, Senses of
Cinema [online], 28.

Lausanne Underground Film & Music Festival, 2015. The Handmade Cinema of Peter Tscherkassky
LUFF 2015Film [video, online]. YouTube. Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnwqKR1hfq8 [Accessed 20 February 2017]

Outer Space, 1999. [Short Film, Online]. Peter Tscherkassky. Austria: Peter Tscherkassky

Pierson, M., 2008. Special Effects in Martin Arnold's and Peter Tscherkassky's Cinema of Mind,
Discourse: Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media & Culture [Online], 28 (2), 28-50

The Entity, 1982. [Film, Online]. Directed by Sidney J. Furie. USA: American Cinema Productions

The Shining, 1980. [Film, Online]. Directed by Stanley Kubrick. UK/USA: Warner Bros.

von Dassanowsky, R. Speck, O., 2011. New Austrian Film. New York: Berghahn Books
Bibliography
BakersTuts, 2012. After Effects Tutorial: Distortion [video, online]. Available from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIS6pepPPY4 [Accessed 3rd March 2017]

Dream Work, 2001. [short film, online]. Created by Peter Tscherkassky. Austria: Peter
Tscherkassky

ECAbrams, 2013. Film Dust and Scratches (and a little extra) - Adobe After Effects tutorial
[video, online]. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USqw_JItvBg [Accessed
3rd March 2017]

Georgiiou, 2014. Adobe After Effects - Best Glitch Tutorial [video, online]. YouTube. Available
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYkqC9uI8Nc [Accessed 3rd March 2017]

Ignace Aleya, 2011. How to create an old film look using After Effects [video, online].
Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZted8NDWE8 [Accessed 3rd March
2017]

Instructions for a Light and Sound Machine, 2005. [short film, online]. Created by Peter
Tscherkassky. Austria: Peter Tscherkassky

LArriv, 1999. [short film, online]. Created by Peter Tscherkassky. Austria: Peter
Tscherkassky

Red Giant, 2015. Red Giant QuickTip #61: Adding Digital Distortion to Your Footage [video, online].
Vimeo. Available from https://vimeo.com/101084833 [Accessed 3rd March 2017].
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Peter Tscherkassky

HOW AND WHY

A Few Notes Concerning Production Techniques Employed In the Making of My Darkroom Films

HOW

My very first darkroom film saw the light of the projector in the year 1984 and in a sense, Motion
Picture (La Sortie des Ouvriers de lUsine Lumire Lyon) might be my most radical work to date.
To a certain degree, this concept film was the fruit of my primary reading material at the time:
Umberto Ecos A Theory of Semiotics. Eco isolates particles of darkness and light as fundamental
to the photographic (and thus also filmic) code. The tiny, isolated components of this code are
equivalent to the phonemes of spoken language, and like these they carry no meaning in
themselves. It is only in combination with other such meaningless particles that various
photographic grey values can add up to something meaningful. With Motion Picture I wanted to get
down to these elemental building blocks of the cinematographic illusion apparatus, to isolate and
connect them in a self-sufficient film, revealing the fundamental illusion code. So I marched into
the darkroom and mounted fifty 16 mm strips of unexposed film stock onto the wall, vertically
covering a surface of 50 x 80 cm in total. Onto this blank cinematic canvas I projected a single
frame from the first film ever shot for the purpose of cinematic projection, namely Workers
Leaving the Lumire Factory (1895) by the brothers Auguste and Louis Lumire. I processed the
exposed filmstrips and subsequently arranged them on a light table to form a 50 x 80 cm duplicate
of the original Lumire frame. I then edited the filmstrips together, starting with the first strip on
the left, and proceeding to the right. The result is a three-minute 16 mm film exhibiting the
particles of darkness and light that constitute the original Lumire image, emptied of all figurative
content. As Michael Palm put it, If it were possible to see a code, one might say: here it shows.1

With Motion Picture I had reached a kind of filmic ground zero. It was not easy to find a way back into the
cinematographic space of illusion. It took the pressure of having to write my PhD dissertation in philosophy
to motivate making another film as a means of escape. After completing Motion Picture I had given up
my Berlin residence, where I had lived for five years and had started making films. I moved back to Vienna
where I was supposed to write my thesis, entitled Film and Art Towards a Critical Aesthetic of
Cinematography. But then I descended into what could be called a state of philosophical performance
anxiety. It was in this condition that I stole into a darkroom I had originally set up at the age of 14 in my
parents house. I was armed with two 35 mm advertising films, one for Ergee nylon stockings and the
other for car tires (Semperit HiLife M 401), plus a few negative filmstrips of moving hands I had
photographed with a regular still camera. I proceeded to make the film Manufracture (1985) in a kind of
trance. It took six days working fourteen-hour shifts to complete the film... Despite its kinetic qualities, I

1 Palm, Michael. Liebesfilme. Zu einigen Arbeiten von Peter Tscherkassky. [German] In Avantgardefilm.
Oesterreich 1950 bis heute. Edited by Alexander Horwath, Lisl Ponger and Gottfried Schlemmer. Vienna: Verlag
Wespennest, 1995. See also: http://www.tscherkassky.at/inhalt/txt_ue/01_palm.html
regard Manufracture as a minor work, but it awakened my pleasure in found footage filmmaking once and
for all; it suggested the possibilities of working with the 35 mm still camera as a cine-camera (which would
later lead to Parallel Space: Inter-View [19881992]); and, above all, it opened my eyes to the possibility
of doing film art work in the darkroom.

12 years passed before I found my way back into the darkroom, but ever since, all my films have
been created in that tiny little red light district: LArrive (1997/1998), Outer Space (1999),
Dream Work (2001), Instructions for a Light and Sound Machine (2005), Nachtstck [Nocturne]
(2006), Coming Attractions (2010), The Exquisite Corpus (2015), and Train Again (work in
progress). Each of these works is based on found footage. Film originally shot by other filmmakers
is elementally reconstituted by interventions I undertake in the darkroom, the material thereby
coalescing into a new, autonomous creation. Each of my darkroom films was made by means of an
archaic contact copying process. The concrete method I employ can be explained as follows:

I place a strip of unexposed 35 mm film on a piece of cardboard that measures 15 by 100

centimeters. The filmstrip itself equals 48 frames in length, which comes to two seconds of
projection time.

The raw stock I use is orthochromatic since it is desensitized to red light, I can work in a
darkroom dimly lit by a red bulb. The unexposed film is held in place by small nails with which the
cardboard is outfitted. I place one meter of found footage on top of my unexposed film stock. The
nails of the cardboard protrude through every fourth perforation hole, so I can keep track of the
frame lines: 35 mm film has four perforation holes per film frame, each pair of nails holds one
frame in place. Subsequently I copy the found footage onto the raw material by exposing it to
light. I have a number of possible light sources at my disposal. I largely use customized flashlights
or else a conventional photographic enlarger. But this said, I mainly created the so-called
CinemaScope trilogy (LArrive, Outer Space and Dream Work) using a laser pointer to excise
select portions of individual frames details I copied, one frame at a time. This method of
exposing film stock is reminiscent of painting: I manually guide the laser pointer across the
surface of each individual frame, carefully searching for and exposing pre-selected bits and pieces
the tiny beam of light illuminating and rendering these shapes functions as my brush.

After copying details from 48 frames of found footage, I repeat the process several times over
again, exposing the same single strip of raw stock to several different strips of found footage. In
this way, I can mix details from entirely disparate sequences and each individual frame becomes
an intricate optical collage. Parts of Outer Space include up to five multiple exposures. Dream
Work consists of sequences involving up to seven layers. LArrive, on the other hand, was
produced using a photographic enlarger as my sole light source. I created the collage effect by
sandwiching several strips of found footage on top of the meter of raw film stock I then exposed in
one single pass to the cone of light emitted by my enlarger.
Normally it takes between 50 to 70 minutes to create one meter of multiple exposures frame by
frame. I subsequently develop the film by hand in standard black and white darkroom chemistry
and then examine the results on a light table.

I employed a similar process to create the soundtrack for Outer Space. The sound of analog film is
encoded in the form of an optical soundtrack, a graphically jagged, visual track running along the
edge of the film frame. And so it is that a films soundtrack can be copied and collaged in the same
way as its images. I used this technique to full advantage in the case of Outer Space: I often
selected and copied portions of audio from one part of the original film to accompany a completely
different sequence of my newly emerging film.

In the case of LArrive, I copied the image portion of my source material so that it edged beyond
the visible film frame, over to where the soundtrack is supposed to be. The projectors audio
system thereby reads these image fragments as sound, making them audible. (The result is
vaguely reminiscent of the Italian Futurists intonarumori or noise instruments.)

My darkroom work is always preceded by a planning phase that is no less intricate and laborious
than the darkroom work. I closely study my found material on DVD and virtually get to know it by
heart. The elements of individual frames, each shot and every sequence triggers a kind of
vocabulary for the new film. Based on this vocabulary, I develop a new story with a dramaturgical
structure I set to paper in my notebook.

In a second notebook I map out a precise microstructure for the exposure of each meter of film.
This notation work is an absolute necessity, guiding my later steps in the near dark. It resembles a
musical score, carefully listing all future darkroom interventions. The result is a graphic notation
for each filmstrip. If a mistake has occurred in the process of copying my material, I can start the
exposure process all over again based on these notations.

WHY

Whether we like it or not, today we are witnessing the rapid replacement of classic analog film by
digital imaging technologies. There seems to be little doubt that it is only a matter of time before
the entire production and projection process will be purely digital in nature. Should you find
yourself in one of the few analog projection booths left, surrounded by clumsy projectors, you
already might feel youve stumbled into a kind of Jurassic Park. Giant reels of heavy film requiring
transportation to and from the distributor, and from one theater to the next, nowadays resemble
something off a list of endangered species. It may be true that in many fields of audio-visual
communication it does not make a big difference whether images stem from a strip of film or are
rendered from a digital medium. However, in all cases where its about film as an art form, the
difference between the two media is absolutely crucial.
This has to do with the etiology of modern art in general. Historically speaking, the different forms
of what we term modern art have been determined by a process of rationalization that affected
society as a whole. The philosophical roots of this process can be found in the Enlightenment, its
social origin in the French Revolution, when reason constituted the final determinant of the
legitimacy of political power. From an economic perspective, the Modern Age can be considered
the result of a rationalization process that laid claim to the world in its technical form, namely
industrialization. In the art world, the spread of rationalization was expressed by work that began
to reflect its own inner structure, its creative means and possibilities, and what is integral to these:
its material. In the history of cinema, classic and contemporary avant-garde films reflect qualities
characteristic of film as a material medium, and exploit the specific artistic possibilities film offers. 2

Regarded from this perspective, one thing becomes clear: Analog film and digital media are in no
way interchangeable when it comes to advanced artistic articulation as expressed through moving
images. The materials differ too greatly. It is solely the effect they create, the illusion of
movement they share in common. You could even modestly exaggerate and claim analog and
digital media have nothing in common, except that both are used to produce moving images.

Of course this diagnosis should by no means be misconstrued as a criticism of the digital medium
in itself or doubt as to its artistic potential. I just want to stress the fact that what the individual
artist can do with these two media is radically different: In one case you have binary data stored
on an electronic medium which can be manipulated in all kinds of ways, but it cannot be touched
and manipulated directly with human hands; in the other case there is a base with a complexly
structured coating of emulsion on which an analog image is created through the interplay of light
and chemical processes.

In the long run, should the production of analog film be discontinued, as subject to the law of
supply and demand, it would be unprecedented in the annals of history. Up till now, not a single
artistic medium has been replaced by the development of a new one. Today it is conceivable that
for the first time industry might abandon a fully developed and highly advanced medium.

I see the specific meta-significance of the manual skill and handiwork employed in the production
of my films in this context. They were created as artworks that unequivocally demand the use of
conventional film stock: producing them in digital form would literally be impossible.

The specific charm of these films appears to result from the combination of extremely precise
composition (with regard to the footage chosen and its rearrangement) and the obviously aleatory
aspect of the manual production method. Working with a laser pointer or flashlights permits
neither precise exposure times nor exact sizing of the images shape. The result is a constant
fluctuation of the image during projection, an ever-present reminder of the manual nature of the
production process. These visual fluctuations are joined by the unavoidable presence of dirt, hair,
scratches, etc., which become part of the films overall texture. To make a long story short: The

2
For a closer description of this process see: Tscherkassky, Peter. The Framework of Modernity. Some
concluding remarks on cinema and modernism, in Film Unframed. A History of Austrian Avant-Garde Cinema
[English]. Edited by Peter Tscherkassky. Vienna: FilmmuseumSynemaPublikationen, 2012, pp. 311316.
production process is inscribed in the very images of my darkroom films; this process presents
itself in a form that is indebted to a manual labor employing analog material that could never be
exchanged with any other medium.

It is entirely possible that a niche will be established perpetuating classic analog cinema, and an
industry greatly reduced in size will continue the production of analog film stock even if
primarily for purposes of conservation. It seems to me to be of utmost importance in the dynamic
of this turning point in history to point out the specific artistic potential offered by a strip of film.
And the fact that handmade analog films are able to entertain such a wide audience as is the
case with my darkroom films could be considered an expression of a widespread and intact
sensitivity to the unique beauty of classic analog cinematography.

Over 35 years ago I began making films using Super-8 at the exact same time video became
popular as an amateur format. The imminent fate of Super-8 was thereby sealed. This perspective
upon the future of Super-8 triggered a personal response in the form of a greater sensitivity to the
specific characteristics and beauty of my means of artistic expression. My speaking to the special
qualities of the analog filmstrip (in writing, during interviews, and on stage) has sometimes
provoked the reproach, or at least raised a question about "material fetishism". My response has
always been that I aim to create art works that can only be made with film. In other words, if
there were nothing other than computers, hard disks and magnetic tape, my art works would
simply not come to be. Those who regard this as a fetishizing of material should re-examine their
concept of the fetish.

And finally, messing with analog film is a hell of a lot of fun!

Translation: Eve Heller

This essay partly based on a much shorter text published under the title, Comment et pourquoi? Quelques remarques sur la
ralisation technique de la trilogie CinemaScope, in Trafic 44 Revue de Cinma (Paris), no. 44 (2002).