From: email suppressed
Date: Fri Feb 20 2004 - 22:11:20 PST
Well this is the inverse (or the mirror-echo) maybe of my suggestion that
chains of inspiration/influence *do* establish, a History (canons, photocopiers,
Exissential Cinema etcet
-Sam
>
> I was simply commenting that I thought someone had made a valid point
> that shouldn't be so conveniently dismissed. I don't think that
> trivializes anyone's work. Nor does it demonstrate loathing of anyone
> else's "turf." It was simply to defend a principle that apparently,
> after all this time, still needs defending. . . . I appreciate your
> concern with everyone getting on with their work, however. And that's
> what I have to do, right now. No more time for this.
>
> Marilyn
>
> On Thursday, February 19, 2004, at 10:31 PM, Julie Brown wrote:
>
> > I think the interesting thing about this whole discussion that has
> > gone on for weeks now is just to show how little our discipline has
> > moved emotionally since it's inception ( blaming Mekas for one's
> > inability to show work ...or the fact that anyone from the sixties is
> > the focus of why one's work is revolving in quicksand is simply a
> > means of expressing a frustration not with the specific person but
> > with this the notion of this thread,,,a real loathing of anyone's
> > turf but their own... this of course has been one of the major
> > stumbling blocks for any progression from the underground...perhaps we
> > really want to be here..and constantly gnashing our teeth ...this
> > constant holding of grudges...that is always what has wrapped us up
> > into some theoretical logic that of course always justifies the notion
> > of the emotion....in the twenty five years I have been involved in
> > this art form.....movement always seems to be measured by this petty
> > form....the love we have for our work and the expression of the
> > possibility of what can be... always is trivialized...the passion
> > is what we do can as a individual to push the cinematic
> > envelope...this of course is the incredible attraction we have...makes
> > us push ahead unfortunately the loathing that for the most part stays
> > submerged in the thread has been brought to the surface by Mr.
> > Zedd...sadly you always hope with each passing generation that this
> > negative history will slowly dissipate but it is apparent that it will
> > never change...work( psychological/emotional/intellectual) all that it
> > takes...all that we put on the line...then transforms from our
> > disappointment into whatever negativity will stick.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Marilyn Brakhage
> > To: email suppressed
> > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 3:24 PM
> > Subject: Payment issues
> >
> > While I would also like to read less petty bickering and more
> > substantive discussion, I think, nonetheless, that the posts coming
> > from Nick Zedd should not be dismissed wholesale. At least some of
> > them have legitimately expressed legitimate concerns. . . . Clearly,
> > there is a difference between a group of artists getting together and
> > contributing funds to make some screenings happen, and large, heavily
> > funded institutions who fail to adequately pay film artists. (The
> > Whitney, by the way, does not have a very illustrious history in this
> > regard, which perhaps should be addressed.) This is a very legitimate
> > issue. Film artists should be paid fairly by people who want to screen
> > their films. It seems that the problem is that arguments can arise
> > when the lines get fuzzy, as they sometimes do, between funded
> > institutions and impoverished artist-run centers. But as to the latter
> > -- I guess if you want to pay someone to look at your work (someone
> > who is not already being paid to do so), that's an option (which could
> > be thought of as part of one's production/distribution expenses), but
> > if work IS chosen for a screening, why NOT try to set up systems that
> > either pay rentals OR split income from the door 50/50 (or at least
> > 60/40 -- or something!)
> >
> > I think some righteous indignation is not entirely out of order.
> >
> > Marilyn Brakhage
> >
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.