it doesn't have to. i don't think you need to physically inhabit these spaces either. usually we just let the eye travel into them.
other stuff comes to the fore. what does a room think about when it's finished work for the day? the canteen outside of meal times. the holiday resort in the off season.Part of the allure in the empty or digitally rendered place is the simplicity, the reduction, the lack of complexity that comes with being entangled with other people, power dynamics etc
Now I think of it, when I was in my teens I did a fair bit climbing about, and breaking into places drunk, and the challenge was more interesting than the places we arrived.definitely with my limited urbexing i felt an anticlimax once we were "there", just "in" the space with no sense of change or moment
I'm not sure it was so much that as a criterion for what constituted an "avant-garde" so much as there is an existing strand of filmmaking which is considered to be so, and which Under the Skin is (I suppose) not considered to be a part of (by the academy)?Was the basis of the argument that it starred a famous actress and mass presentation?
Haven't seen Under The Skin in a long time, and was even less qualified than I am now to gauge these things, but that doesn't seem like a bad suggestion by the student