From: Matt Teichman (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Feb 15 2004 - 19:10:32 PST
Shelly,
Thank you for the links (which I enjoyed), but they're only tangentially
related to the question I posed.
The point of asking it was that the question of how to interpret these
sorts of stats is a very deep one, and it is a grave mistake to jump to
reductive explanations of the form "men prefer to curate men" as a way of
accounting for them. To take a trite example, are there fewer female
mathematicians because of discrimination in admissions committees? Or
because there are fewer female applicants? Or both? When it comes down to
it any of the three answers is equally unsatisfactory--the matter is an
inordinately complicated one, leading to labyrinth upon labyrinth of
chicken-egg regressions. It's not that these questions shouldn't be raised
(on the contrary; they are of the utmost importance), but rather that they
need to be approached with care. "Small percentage of films by women in EC
--> Discrimination against women in EC" is a very dangerous inference to
make on its own.
And yes, it is unbelievable that Wieland was not included.
At 09:23 PM 2/15/04 -0500, you wrote:
>15 or so would be a huge landslide of an improvement. in 1975 i'd say that
>i hadn't given a whole lot of thought to experimental cinema, and the
>problem with invisibility is that as time goes by, those not written about
>become even more so.
>
>i'd refer you to the swell website of the guerilla girls, below a link to a
>poster they did in long ago 1989
>
>http://www.guerrillagirls.com/posters/advantages.shtml
>
>or one about the 1995 whitney biennial
>
>http://www.guerrillagirls.com/posters/whitey.shtml
>
>changes had/have to be fought for.
>
>shelly
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.