From: Jack Sargeant (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 16 2005 - 11:19:49 PDT
yes it was unclear...brain running faster than typing..... i think (as
someone who was born in 68) that my refs for cinema are a little later
and dealt with different areas, my first exposure to experimental work
was when i was 10 and i was shown video art (as it was called then). in
80s UK there was very little opportunity to see films by jacobs,
brakhage et al projected, we grew up watching art film on video or tv.
i remember the real excitement of scratch video and the films made by
cabaret voltaire (the band). for us video was a tool, a medium that had
its own language. a medium that used palgiarism, hand held video, toy
cameras, simple video editing, and was distributed via the mail or
screened in clubs on tv monitors. whereas the past was about projected
film, and i always saw stan brakhage as specifically about light and
the nature of light, although yes i realise there was far more
happening in the work than 'just' light but as a youngster that was my
thinking (this was, 23 odd years ago.....)
jack
On Thursday, June 16, 2005, at 06:51 pm, Marilyn Brakhage wrote:
> Sorry, I don't follow. . . . I don't know how old you are, but I don't
> know what that has to do with this exactly. My comment was just in
> response to your writing about considering the DVD distribution of
> "filmmakers whose work experimented with other areas (content, color
> etc) and not necessarily the texture of light" -- my point being that
> surely Harry Smith, Kenneth Anger, Ken Jacobs . . . were/are fully
> concerned with the texture of light, as was Stan's work also concerned
> with "content, color etc." . . . Perhaps I was entirely misreading,
> and missing your point. (But you needn't write an essay to clarify it
> for me.)
>
> Marilyn
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 16, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Jack Sargeant wrote:
>
>> oh i do, but i'm not going to write an essay on it here....but in
>> terms
>> of the debate viz a medium of dissemination i'd say it was the light
>> of
>> projected film that was seen as important (given some comments earlier
>> on in the strand).
>> but maybe i'm of a different generation and thus have different
>> cultural ref points.
>> jack
>>
>> On Thursday, June 16, 2005, at 05:41 pm, Marilyn Brakhage wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not entirely sure you really DO know "why Stan Brakhage is
>>> important" -- considering your rather reductive evaluation. But,
>>> whatever.
>>>
>>> MB
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 16, 2005, at 08:14 AM, Jack Sargeant wrote:
>>>
>>>> I
>>>> think it's time that we consider other filmmakers who's work
>>>> experimented with other areas (content, colour etc) and not
>>>> necessarily
>>>> the texture of light... wouldn't their work be worth putting onto
>>>> DVD?
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.