From: konrad (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Aug 21 2005 - 10:54:50 PDT
While Pip's suggestion for a distribution model seems to inject
some cash into the bohmeian world of experimental film, i don't
think it's "radical" in the least. Actually it's quite
conservative, and just like saying, hey, let us in on some of
that Art World moolah action! Nothing wrong with earning a
living -- and plenty of artists are starving or giving up
producing work -- but the model pretty much abandons the
original ethos of experimental film, at least as i have
experienced it. One might call that an art that is either
"maturing" or "selling out." I'm undecided on the question
since it's hypothetical at this point.
I'm not for starving all artists, but i don't want the cinema
world to turn into the gallery world, or even turn *to* it for a
sense of worth and value. I realize this would be a minority
opinion, but my sense is that 'what could be done' (about the
real problem that Dominic highlights) is well-addressed by
Gregg's suggestion, which would be my own, too, and has been
other's: don't see DVD sales as an enemy but find a way to get
in on THAT action, as a coop. Just as Other Cinema DVD,
Peripheral Produce and Microcinema Int'l do. It's the DIY music
world model, to be sure, which i think experimental film has
more affinity with than the gallery world.
In my mind, Pip's analysis of how the situation has changed is
correct only so far. Hollywood does not exist as it once did,
as the only game in town for distribution, but all the
alternatives for film have the same aspirations: sell lots of
units for little bucks, in theaters that force you to watch 15
minutes of "penalty track" (opposed to "bonus track")
advertising before they show you the film you paid $10 for, and
adding insult to injury charge an arm an a leg for a cup of
stale coffee, WHEN there is someone on the third floor of the
multiplex around during the late show to sell it to you.
Industry is Industry and, underground is still, well,
underground. You want the galleries and governments to rescue
film. That's fine and good, but the track record and prospects
are not so good, as far as i can tell, for a movement that
started out renegade, and developed an egalitarian sense of
values in the 1960s. I wonder, how are 16mm prints going to
supplant artist DVDs in the minds of people who don't want to
have to buy a special equipment to show it?
MY ideal model is that screenings are regular and constant, like
Anthology Film Archive in NYC does, but free of charge for a
modest membership fee (Vogel's Cinema 16 model) or every cheap
for non-members, and accompanied by good film notes, so that,
like a going to the library, people can EDUCATE THEMSELVES.
The funding for preservation and renewal of prints would come
from personal and institutional rentals, grants and DVD sales,
and this is where i totally agree with Gregg, and others that
Canyon should get into the DVD distribution business, without
changing its selectivity, and turn around and ENCOURAGE
filmmakers to make sampler DVDs, i.e. don't put all your work on
the DVD, but just enough so people can get the idea of what your
work is about. And do a complete job: include notes, so people
can read about the work and find out that 16mm prints are
available and will provide a MUCH RICHER experience of the work.
Explain why that's true, and stop expecting people to just have
faith. It would take committment on the part of the artists,
but in the end it would have the effect of helping the Dinosaur
that Canyon is (that's BRUCE CONNER's affectionate term for the
artist run business model!) survive this ice age.
konrad
^Z
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, gregg biermann wrote:
> possibilities and meanings beyond "cannibalizing the Canyon Classics". The
> question is: will the business model of Canyon need to change in order to
> avoid smelling of formaldehyde? I'd like to see a Canyon Cinema video label
> of recent cutting edge digital works which would eventually occupy an
> economic position within the organization much greater than the distribution
> of the Canyon Classics on 16mm film. I think that the digital business will
> eventually be used to support the up keep of the 16mm collection even when
> circulation has dwindled further. This would do more to preserve the
> important works in the Canyon Collection than anything else I've heard
> suggested.
^Z
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.