From: Steven Budden (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 09:46:28 PDT
"Should Experimental film criticism really be about a pipeline of consumables ??"
Well, I look at it this way... many cameras are built like tanks. For all practical purposes there is a camera supply to last almost indefinitely, and they should get cheaper and cheaper as they become obsolete. Look at how much prices have dropped in the past year alone?
And as you point out, digital does not bypass the pipeline, plus you need to upgrade software and cameras every few years, at near retail prices!
Oil painters rely on paint companies, but if paint companies went under would painting die?
I think of film in a similar light (though it is admittedly more complex). Did the proliferation of motion picture labs in the sixties and seventies make filmmakers a little lazy? The thought seems to be now... if it isn't easy, it must be impossible! That's the sort of thinking that is at the heart of the whole digital revolution. Without Kodak, would film really die?
Steven
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Wells <email suppressed>
To: email suppressed
Sent: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:10:53 -0400
Subject: Re: political and power relationships- 16mm, fear and shivers
> We shouldn't be worrying about whether film will die someday (as > makers)... we should be making what we can today. The future of film > is in the hands of filmmakers.
>
Well I think photochemical film will still be happening for quite awhile. I DO worry about it (I prefer to shoot on it so far no matter what) but I don't think critics should.
Should Experimental film criticism really be about a pipeline of consumables ??
-Sam Wells
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.