FRAMEWORKS Digest - 5 Sep 2005 - Special issue (#2005-536)

From: FRAMEWORKS automatic digest system (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Sep 05 2005 - 07:49:44 PDT

Next message: Fred Camper: "Re: video art, etc."
Previous message: Adam Savje: "Massachusetts College of Art Film Society Schedule FALL 2005 Version 1"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

There are 7 messages totalling 515 lines in this issue.

Topics in this special issue:

  1. Film and/as Art
  2. political and power relationships (4)
  3. Jodorowsky + misc. (2)

__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 04:34:09 EDT
From: Steven Budden <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: Film and/as Art

-------------------------------1125909249
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Who's this we? As artists we are free to make what we wish to make in the
medium that suits us? Are we caught up in nostalgia? I am. Are you?

There are more artists working in video than film in the world at this
moment. Film "purists" are a rare breed. So who is pushing what where?

I agree that the medium does matter. Did painting survive oil paint? I don't
know what that analogy means. Yes? The nature of painting didn't change by
using oil as a binder instead of tempera or casein or wax. Same pigments. Same
brushes. Same tradition.

Is the nature of cinema changing by these shifts in media? What tradition(s)
are we working in? Is anyone advocating a sweeping renaissance?

I think many contemporary artists are revisiting modernist ideologies. In
grad school many of my colleagues were picking up dangling threads left by
artists who burned through movements during the twentieth century. Many
interesting lines of artistic thought were abandoned as artists scrambled for the
"new." Fifteen isms in ten years.

The "new" has lost its lustre. Back to the drawing board.

Steven

In a message dated 9/4/2005 11:29:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
email suppressed writes:

. My
question about 16mm avant-garde film is: have the great works been
created already? Is Sam correct when he points out, the door has been
opened and opened wide for a good long time? If so what does that mean
for the avant-garde? Are we simply caught up in nostalgia for a utopian
modernism? C'mon -- push it!

__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

-------------------------------1125909249
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:=20=
Arial"=20
bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
e_document=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana'">
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Who's this we? As artists we are free to make what w=
e wish=20
to make in the medium that suits us? Are we caught up in nostalgia? I am. Ar=
e=20
you?</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT></DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial></FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>There are more artists working in video than film in=
the=20
world at this moment. Film "purists" are a rare breed. So who is pushing wha=
t=20
where? <BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>I agree that the medium does matter. Did painting su=
rvive=20
oil paint? I don't know what that analogy means. Yes? The nature of painting=
=20
didn't change by using oil as a binder instead of tempera or casein or wax.=20=
Same=20
pigments. Same brushes. Same tradition. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Is the nature of cinema changing by these shifts in media? What=20
tradition(s) are we working in? Is anyone advocating a sweeping=20
renaissance? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think many contemporary artists are revisiting modernist ideolog=
ies.=20
In grad school many of my colleagues were picking up dangling threads left b=
y=20
artists who burned through movements during the twentieth century. Many=20
interesting lines of artistic thought were abandoned as artists=20
scrambled for the "new." Fifteen isms in ten years. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The "new" has lost its lustre. Back to the drawing board. <FONT=20
face=3DArial></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Steven </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 9/4/2005 11:29:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,=20
email suppressed writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><=
FONT=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=
=3D2>. My=20
  <BR>question about 16mm avant-garde film is: have the great works been=20
  <BR>created already? Is Sam correct when he points out, the door has been=20
  <BR>opened and opened wide for a good long time?  If so what does tha=
t=20
  mean <BR>for the avant-garde? Are we simply caught up in nostalgia for a=20
  utopian <BR>modernism? C'mon  -- push it!<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
<p>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
<p>

-------------------------------1125909249--

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 04:35:58 EDT
From: Steven Budden <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: political and power relationships

-------------------------------1125909358
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 9/4/2005 9:45:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
email suppressed writes:

I don't need to. I've been on Frameworks since around '96 and know very well
the range of what gets discussed and how those discussions generally go.
Someone mentions a film/filmmaker. Sometimes there's a discussion, more often
there isn't. When there is a discussion, other, better known filmmakers also
get mentioned, and eventually someone mentions a Brakhage film which then
becomes the topic of part (or all) of the discussion. ** This is the exact reason
I said we need something in addition to a listserve such as a magazine, web
page, etc.

What filmmaker did you want to mention?

Yes, lets start a magazine.

Steven

__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

-------------------------------1125909358
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

-------------------------------1125909358--

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 04:55:02 EDT
From: Steven Budden <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: political and power relationships

-------------------------------1125910502
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 9/4/2005 4:27:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
email suppressed writes:

While this is likely debateable, what follows is something worth thikning
about.
"Video Art" as promoted in the art world--video installation, big budget
productions, etc--is a counter tradition orgnized along lines similar to
large-scale painting, and in many respects it occupies the niche in the art world
that was reserved for history painting, large scale asbtraction, etc. It is the
big money motion picture form as art.
I'm not sure this is correct. In fact I'm certain it's wrong. While the
video artists do get a lot of prestige in biennials and such, that doesn't bring
in the dough. Video artists are generally as starving as the rest of us. In
fact, most galleries push their video artists to make objects that can sell...
and most video galleries have painting shows to support the video shows (or
they close down).

Painting is still the blue chip money maker of the art world. People like to
dish out for objects.

Artists have a tendency to wrongly envy artists in other art marketplace
positions. I wanted to make films because the life of a painter is a hard life.
(!)

Most artists are in poverty and a few are not, pure and simple. I know
Whitney Biennial artists who drive shitty cars and sell a few paintings in a show
once a year. They teach for a living. Most of the world's star videomakers
teach for a living? Do they all do it sheerly for enjoyment? I doubt it.

If video installation is the road to riches, hand me one of them cameras.
Poverty is wrapped around the Avant Garde like a jellyfish.

Steven

PS. (Please don't name two examples of wealthy video artists. For every two
there are thousands of names we've never heard).

__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

-------------------------------1125910502
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:=20=
Arial"=20
bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
e_document=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
<DIV>In a message dated 9/4/2005 4:27:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,=20
email suppressed writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><=
FONT=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=
=3D2>While=20
  this is likely debateable, what follows is something worth thikning=20
  about.<BR>"Video Art" as promoted in the art world--video installation, bi=
g=20
  budget productions, etc--is a counter tradition orgnized along lines simil=
ar=20
  to large-scale painting, and in many respects it occupies the niche in the=
art=20
  world that was reserved for history painting, large scale asbtraction, etc=
. It=20
  is the big money motion picture form as art. </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>I'm not sure this is correct. In fact I'm certain it's wrong. While the=
=20
video artists do get a lot of prestige in biennials and such, that doesn't b=
ring=20
in the dough. Video artists are generally as starving as the rest of us. In=20
fact, most galleries push their video artists to make objects that can sell.=
..=20
and most video galleries have painting shows to support the video shows (or=20=
they=20
close down). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Painting is still the blue chip money maker of the art world. People li=
ke=20
to dish out for objects. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Artists have a tendency to wrongly envy artists in other art marketplac=
e=20
positions. I wanted to make films because the life of a painter is a ha=
rd=20
life. (!)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Most artists are in poverty and a few are not, pure and simple. I know=20
Whitney Biennial artists who drive shitty cars and sell a few paintings in a=
=20
show once a year. They teach for a living. Most of the world's star videomak=
ers=20
teach for a living? Do they all do it sheerly for enjoyment? I doubt it.=20
 </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If video installation is the road to riches, hand me one of them camera=
s.=20
Poverty is wrapped around the Avant Garde like a jellyfish. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Steven </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>PS. (Please don't name two examples of wealthy video artists. For every=
two=20
there are thousands of names we've never heard). </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
<p>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
<p>

-------------------------------1125910502--

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:05:33 -0400
From: Sam Wells <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: Jodorowsky + misc.

> frankly I
> find the telecineing of an original camera negative
> for the purposes of a DVD release to be staggeringly
> dangerous and unnecessary, but oh well.

And essentially never happens, the transfers will be from an IP or low
con print.

(FWIW I'd be happier to run *uncut* neg through a good telecine than a
contact printer)

-Sam

__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:15:33 -0400
From: Michael Betancourt <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: political and power relationships

>> While this is likely debateable, what follows is something worth thinking about.
>> "Video Art" as promoted in the art world--video installation, big budget productions, etc--is a
>>counter tradition organized along lines similar to large-scale painting, and in many respects it
>>occupies the niche in the art world that was reserved for history painting, large scale abstraction,
>>etc. It is the big money motion picture form as art.

>I'm not sure this is correct. In fact I'm certain it's wrong. While the video artists do get a lot of prestige
>in biennials and such, that doesn't bring in the dough. Video artists are generally as starving as the
>rest of us. In fact, most galleries push their video artists to make objects that can sell... and most
>video galleries have painting shows to support the video shows (or they close down).

I know. In fact some of the well known names don't make much money on their video installation work. But comparing only the big names, say a Brakhage to a Viola, one is immediately struck by a huge difference in terms of money--which was my point. The fact is most artists are poor, but at the "top" of both fields things are quite different.

And the differences extend beyond just money. Artists also get some prestige for being artists, ag filmmakers don't. There are well establish critical forums etc. in high profile magazines that discuss video art, this is no longer the case with ag film; for every 1 ag film history book there are probably 10 on video art; colleges have entire programs and classes specifically on video (or "time based") art, ag film is usually limited to a one course, or a limited part of a class, and in the video art classes usually you don't need to fight against the "if this was a Hollywood film" mentality because the students assume the difference.

Michael Betancourtwww.cinegraphic.net
the avant-garde film & video blog

__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:21:01 -0400
From: owen <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: Jodorowsky + misc.

Sam's right. Original camera negative has been running through
telecines at labs and post facilities since the mid 80's.
It's not dangerous.

Owen Plotkin
Pres/CEO
the now corporation
7 w 22 floor 6
NY NY 10010
212 367 7701
http://thenowcorporation.com

On Sep 5, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Sam Wells wrote:

>> frankly I
>> find the telecineing of an original camera negative
>> for the purposes of a DVD release to be staggeringly
>> dangerous and unnecessary, but oh well.
>>
>
> And essentially never happens, the transfers will be from an IP or
> low con print.
>
>
> (FWIW I'd be happier to run *uncut* neg through a good telecine
> than a contact printer)
>
> -Sam
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>

__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:52:51 -0500
From: Fred Camper <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: political and power relationships

Michael Betancourt wrote:

"While this is likely debatable, what follows is something worth
thinking about. 'Video Art' as promoted in the art world--video
installation, big budget productions, etc--is a counter tradition
organized along lines similar to large-scale painting, and in many
respects it occupies the niche in the art world that was reserved for
history painting, large scale abstraction, etc. It is the big money
motion picture form as art. And the tradition it represents is
antithetical to 'avant-garde film.'"

I think this is an excellent point. I've seen many of these, and while I
like a few of the artists who work this way (Shirin Neshat being one),
even their work pales besides the best avant-garde film, while much of
what I see in the way of museum video installations is unwatchably
inarticulate. Long takes of the subject seem as unthought out as the
framing, both looking as if the montage of Eisenstein and the
brilliantly conceived long takes of Dreyer and so many others had never
happened. Never even mind avant-garde film; they look as if they were
made in abject ignorance of all of film history. One thing I find so
horrible about the MoMA's presentation of Hollis Frampton's great film
"Lemon" as a video installation is that they make it look like all this
other more recent stuff, especially when there are lights on in the
gallery; there's no place to sit; people walk by and stop for a minute;
it looks like the presentation of its object, a lemon, rather than a
film with the integrity of the film frame and film time.

Maybe there's something else going on in these video installations that
I'm not understanding. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they are "conceptual" and
I don't get the concept. But good conceptual art, all the way down to
Yoko Ono's early 1960s index card descriptions of performances, takes
care with its materials, however limited.

Backing up my guess about film ignorance is the split between the
museum-and-gallery art world and the much smaller world of avant-garde
film and video. I may have reported here earlier about the Chicago
premiere of Barney's "Cremaster 3" at the Museum of Contemporary Art.
Tout le local art world was there, big name collectors and curators and
art school deans. That's nice, but these are people you would never see
at a Chicago Filmmakers screening, whether it is of Brakhage or young
Chicagoans.

My tentative hypothesis is that the people who go gaga over much of this
stuff do so out of total and abject ignorance of the history of film as
an art. Not knowing the language that's already established, they think
these poorly-photographed imitations of Lumiere on video, or that
Barney's sub-Fellini fantasy worlds (and I don't even like Fellini), are
somehow interesting.

Fred Camper
Chicago

__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

------------------------------

End of FRAMEWORKS Digest - 5 Sep 2005 - Special issue (#2005-536)
*****************************************************************

Next message: Fred Camper: "Re: video art, etc."
Previous message: Adam Savje: "Massachusetts College of Art Film Society Schedule FALL 2005 Version 1"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]