Undiscovered Potential of the Film Medium

After watching the films by Peterson and Deren, I really disagree with the thought that the way that Peterson presents his films is a new "genre". All that I really saw out of his work was a bunch of random images with even more random audio added onto it. The reason I also mention Deren is because I have seen one other film by her, "Meshes of the Afternoon", and the class I saw it in classified it as a Surrealist film. After seeing "At Land" I realized that most of her work would fall in the Surrealist style. Now, I can't see how Peterson's films fit under this category. There is no coherent thought in the entire 15 or so minutes. The other main point that he said was that his films were new and original because he used only objects that he had present, which was opposite to the normal in Hollywood where they buy everything and have some incredibly expensive sets. I don't think that this restriction alone qualifies his films as anything special. Some people may call me confused, stupid, perhaps that I have no creativity, or that this argument is exactly the problem that "most people" have, but I would rather watch something coherent when it's compared to a film like "The Lead Shoes". I suppose my point is that Deren made a great film on the same budget that is relatively easy to follow and defines a popular film style of the 1940's, and Peterson filmed a bunch of random things that you could find on any video camera.