From: James Kreul (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Feb 17 2004 - 10:11:07 PST
>I still think the idea that films by women, or by gays, or by pansexual
>Aztec hermaphrodites, or by straight white males represent a coherent
>position is ridiculous. There is no reason that anyone of one category
>cannot identify with a film by someone of another category, more deeply
>than they identify with "their own."
I was confused by this in response, since I don't think I took up subject
positioning as a reason why it might have been a good idea to have a woman
on the selection committee (though you were not just responding to my
post). I think it is far more practical than that. When I suggested that
Shirley Clarke (for example) could come up with a better list than you or I
could, I wasn't suggesting that she could do so because she could identify
better with women's films. I think she would do a better job because she
would have known more women filmmakers than you and I do (even if only her
own colleagues). And I don't think the lack of women has much to do with
the ability of the 5 men to "identify" with women's films. I think it has
more to do with not having a woman on the committee making title and
filmmaker suggestions in the first place. I don't think the example of the
female video curator at Anthology from the Starr article had anything to do
with her ability to identify with women's videos; I think it had to do with
her wanting to buy some tapes by women as well as men.
The "15+ challenge" seems an inappropriate response because it comes across
as a skeptical and somewhat condescending "Oh yeah, name some?" And I'm
pretty sure at least some women would agree with me (apologies in advance
if this is mistaken) that there has been a tendency in certain past
Frameworks threads for men to jump all over certain posts from women
regarding certain topics. (I've directly or indirectly contributed to this
in different threads.)
I think it is absurd to look for a smoking gun to pin an individual with
institutional sexism. So when you say ask, "how do we tell whether it was a
question of whose films Mekas, Broughton, Kubelka, Kelman, and Sitney were
identifying with? Is it appropriate to assume, without knowing anything
additional about them or the circumstances?" I'm not sure we really need to
know anything more about them because it is not about them, in that
sense. If my sense of certain threads on Frameworks is right (and I'm not
thinking of particularly recent threads) it could be the case that someone
down the line would survey the number of posts by men and women, and look
at the types of responses to posts by women and point out some things that
we'd probably not want to hear. If that happens, I doubt that it would be
helpful for that researcher to come up to me and ask "Were you sexist? I
need to know because I can't make a conclusion about sexism on Frameworks
until I know what you were thinking." Addressing and correcting these
problems is not just about individuals, it's also about making people aware
of larger patterns that they fall into or participate in sometimes
indirectly. I think there is overwhelming evidence about patterns of
neglect in the art world and in experimental film. It's clear from your
posts that you don't doubt that.
James Kreul
UW-Madison
email suppressed
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.