From: Steven Budden (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 10:07:40 PDT
Again, should we let a paranoia about the end of film dictate the way we work now?
I've just begun home processing and it is easier than I might've imagined. In the same way still photographers consider development of film as an integral part of the art, maybe that aspect has been neglected by filmmakers rushing to the lab with stock? Or when you can do it, do it, when you can't, find an alternative.
It is impossible to know where historically we stand in the present, from the present. We are too close to the moment to get a clear grasp. We can only hypothesize and be wrong or right. The way artists historically have found their place in their tradition has been by following artistic instinct.
Did Cezanne think to himself... alright, I'll take up this brush and usher modernism into the picture? No, he just followed his instincts (albeit, his keen and well educated instincts). Same with Warhol and the "end of modernism." They just made art. Art according to their own definition of what art is. That's all we can do.
Steven
PS. Greenberg also tried to bend art history to his will, thinking he could see the present clearly in art historical terms. He, famously, failed.
"As for FILM, face it, the days for film as a technology are numbered, and it
doesn't make a difference how many artists want to work in the medium, can
afford to work in the medium, etc. When the stock houses decide to end their
production of the final film stock, that's it. And that day isn't as far away as
we'd like to imagine."
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Betancourt <email suppressed>
To: email suppressed
Sent: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 07:53:52 -0400
Subject: Re: political and power relationships
I see my point being made for me. We've been tallking about avant-garde film as
a tradition for making motion pictures, not as just a medium (or at least I have
been saying this), but sooner or later somone chimes in with BUT ITS FILM!!!!!
and the same things get said over and over again. This the source of the
problem.
As for FILM, face it, the days for film as a technology are numbered, and it
doesn't make a difference how many artists want to work in the medium, can
afford to work in the medium, etc. When the stock houses decide to end their
production of the final film stock, that's it. And that day isn't as far away as
we'd like to imagine.
So the choice isn't between one medium and another, but between one way or
working and making and criticisimg and another--which has already supplaned ag
film in a lot of ways, and continues to do so because ag film and the people who
promote it promote an utterly narrow view that is a losing game in the long
term.
And I agree the "future of film is in the hands of filmmakers." What I'm saying
is the choice is being made by more people than just filmmakers, and it looks to
me like "filmmakers" are specifically turning their backs on the future....
Menchaca's discussion of the two fields is poignantly clear about the situation:
video art is incoherent and much of its discourse serves to mystify and make the
work seem more important that it may actually be; the mode of address is
completely different and it doesn't serve any carefully conceived work well to
be shown as video art is shown. But the dominance of the video art approach to
showing media means that film work (like the Warhol and Richter work mentioned)
or any work from that tradition gets shown as video installations.
Now, I have a question about the Richte --and I'm glad to hear Richter will be
shown on film. Will it be in a gallery, or with seats in a theater? Showing it
in a gallery where people have to stand to watch it means it's being shown as if
its video art, even if a 16mm looper and print are used for the show.
The issue that I am concerned with is how the work is seen by the audience:
given the presentation of video art, seeing work from the ag film tradition in
that way seems far more destructive and bad for the movie shown that showing it
on film or video because it changes the audience relation to the work, how much
of it they see and what they understand. Video art is essentially motion
wallpaper, varieties of suclpture, etc. rather than a construction that an
audience watches the way they watch an ag film otr any other movie.
Michael Betancourt
www.cinegraphic.net
the avant-garde film & video blog
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.