Yesterday I sat in on an open discussion led by LUX as an introduction to their residency in Cornwall. The discussion attracted various arts administrators from around the region with a professional interest in moving image. Much of the discussion focussed on how a regional group could attract funding. But part of the discussion was about how the general public might be attracted to view artist-created film and video art.
Among the problems mentioned was that, in a gallery it is often not obvious how long one should devote to looking at a film and whether one needs to see it from beginning to end. The assumption, implicit in the discussion, was that the film maker would necessarily want you to see the whole thing from beginning to end.
But of course that is not true. Many artist-made films can be viewed on an ad hoc basis, where one simply starts watching wherever the film has reached when you arrive and depart just as soon as you decide whether or not this has interest for you. When the film loops, as it normally will, you continue until the time it repeats or you feel you have understood the artists intentions.
Probably this means that the film has no narrative or that any narrative it does have is non-linear, in that it can be accommodated without having to view the film in some film-maker specified sequence.
For me, the interesting issue is: how do you design such a narrative?
The simplest way is for the film to have no narrative at all. Scenes from a travelogue, for example, can usually be viewed in any order and the same is true of many documentaries where the film is showing things of interest but not trying to make a point. Or any point it is making (e.g. look at these poor people/animals/trees that need your help) is very simple and obvious.
A recent video I made (https://vimeo.com/159425484), documenting my visit to the Betty Woodman exhibition at the ICA is an example of a non-linear video narrative where it isn't important where you start viewing, because the story is simply "here is what it felt like to be there". I have made a collage of videos that, basically, remind me of my visit where I spent much of the time looking closely at the works and in particular at the colours.
To emphasise Betty Woodman's use of colour, I have distorted some of the images of her work, so that the representational aspect is removed and the colour can be examined independently. These abstract components can be considered background if colour isn't your main interest. At all times there is something representational on the screen.
Abstract video which just shows something of intrinsic interest is another example of a narrative-free film. The components can be viewed in any order, although you may want to see them all to get the artist's message.