Film Culture (Winter 1955)

AUDIO —VISUALISM versus EDUCATION Edouard L. de Laurot On behalf of FILM CULTURE, the author and Mr. Adolphas Mekas have recently made an extensive study of the present use of the film in our educational system. The research included screenings and discussions of a large variety of experimental, documentary and art films among numerous children’s groups. Although a novelty to an alarming majority of school audiences, these films of quality have unfailingly evoked higher interest and livelier response than are habitually obtained through showings of the conventional educational films. In the following essay, Mr. de Laurot makes a critical assessment of the current theory and practice in the audio-visual field, suggesting some fundamental revisions of concepts and methods. To the Department of Education of the State of New York with whose collaboration the research was undertaken; to the Museum of Modern Art, to Mr. Joe Slevin of the British Information Services, Miss Rosalind Kossoff of Film Images and Mr. Leo Dratfield of Contemporary Films for having offered assistance and advice; as well as to all those who have so graciously helped in collecting and compiling the materials—FILM CULTURE wishes to make grateful acknowledgement. In a recently published booklet, the Film Council of America envisions the future of the 16-millimeter film forecasting ‘“‘an increased use of films on all educational levels, and wider understanding of their role in education.” And, indeed, the first part of this statement is being fulfilled. Since its birth in 1923, the 16-millimeter film has shown a startling growth. By now there are around 70,000 films classified as educational in circulation in the United States; every year 5,000 new titles— totalling 4,000,000 feet of film—are added; 2,600 institutions, companies and organizations lend or rent films for educational purposes; and half a million projectors are humming busily all over the country showing films to an annual audience over a billion strong. Almost all cities whose population exceeds 2,000,000 have their own audiovisual administrative units. There are already more than 250 institutions of higher learning that include courses in audio-visual education in their curricula, and over sixty doctoral theses on audio-visual subjects have been announced.! Untold numbers of books, pamphlets, magazines, circular letters and manuals form an arena of incessant discussion on the theory and methods of audiovisual education. There is jubilant anticipation among audio-visual circles of the introduction in schools of such new devices as color television and magnetic tape cameras. Meanwhile, screenings of educational films are offered by a wide diapason of institutions: churches, citizens’ organizations, the Army, the Navy, veterans’ groups, women’s clubs, cultural and educational institutes, parentteacher groups, film societies—and lastly and preeminently, grade schools, high schools and schools of ‘adult education.” In fact, in some schools, children already spend 1/5 of their learning time in the penumbra of the projection room. It is self-evident that there are many advantages in this extensive use of the film for the purposes of instruction, training and teaching. As an audio-visual aid, the film comes under the same category as charts, diagrams, models, slides—it is simply a more efficient means of helping the instructor present his subject. Indeed it can become an invaluable and even irreplaceable device in the exposition of certain scientific subjects where, for 1 Sixty Years of 16mm Film, A Symposium. Introduction et passim. 6 instance, microor macrophotography is essential to the grasping of a natural process. Here it has the quite valid function of an animated blackboard, perhaps its greatest achievement until now. Somewhat less certain is the usefulness of the “instructional” film inspired by that cognitive trinity: “know how,” “‘know fast,” and “know now;” more often than not the consequence is—know superficially. But there is a third variety among the films currently shown in schools: it includes those containing elements of art, drama or dramatization, moral messages, historical reconstructions, psychological and sociological analyses. It is these films—which, at least in their intent, can be apprehended on the plane of ethic and esthetic—that are more commonly referred to as ‘educational,’ although many teachers have a tendency to merge all three kinds of films in the general category of “audio-visual education.” As we shall see, the confusion between the terms “instruction” and ‘“‘education” corresponds significantly to a fundamental uncertainty on the part of many audiovisualists as to the very concept of education, a concept which it is necessary to clarify if we are to con‘ern ourselves with the educative effect of films. More and more frequently, we hear the phrase “audio-visual education” applied indiscriminately to all films shown in the classroom. For a rapidly growing nurnber of teachers the very term “audio-visual” appears instinct with thaumaturgic powers; for some it comes close to a profession of faith; for others it is a symbol of progress in education, a panacea offering a definitive answer to the ever-reiterated questions: How can teaching be expedited? How, at the same time, can the level of our educational system be raised ? The impressive: proliferation of 16-millimeter footage, along with the .widespread implicit acceptance of the audio-visual credo call for a reflective pause, especially as the alarming majority of films made available to schools can offer only ‘inane substance and mediocre esthetic quality. Witnessing a screening of representative samples of these films—so blithely termed ‘‘educational’’—one is struck by the discrepancy between, on the one hand, the impressive quantitative and technological development of the audio-visual media, the professional-sounding contentdescriptions in film catalogues, the confident statements in teachers’ journals—and, on the other, the disquieting