From: owen (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 14:32:07 PDT
Who here is preventing anyone from labeling their avant garde film as
a work of video art? A question still exists as to how one sells that
video art (film) from a gallery? And does that sale exclude that work
being rented from Canyon and or sold on DVD?
owen
On Sep 6, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Michael Betancourt wrote:
> I'm beginning to feel frustrated with this "discussion" because its
> starting to seem pointless to me to even raise these issues since
> apparently it's falling on deaf ears (or should I write blind eyes
> since it's e-mail?).
>
> Gregg has restated is a big part of what I'm saying: "Listening to
> the criticism of gallery and museum based video art and its
> aesthetic weaknesses relative to avant-garde film confirms my
> suspicion (and I think Michael's also) that we (avant-garde
> filmmakers) might still have something major to offer by linking
> our tradition to digital electronic media. Of course it is not
> enough to simply say it -the answer has to come from the work
> itself." Why does it seem like this is so very difficult to
> understand?
>
> What I'm talking about is more than a question of medium
> specificity, although it gets treated as only a question of the
> technology, film, vs other technologies. And the general inability
> to recognize, or perhaps more correctly, admit to the issues I'm
> raising suggests that things will only get worse, and deservedly
> so. The loss of this tradition rests squarely on those artists who
> close their eyes to the changing situation.
>
> Telling me I'm paranoid (something I said would happen BTW) for
> saying that film is on the way out is reality. Perhaps museums will
> continue to show film, perhaps not, but the chemical-based
> technology is going away. Consider a fact from the world of still
> photography: Kodak has dropped its support of B&W photography. Ten
> years ago to even suggest that would be met with the accusation of
> paranoia.
>
> Film stock and paint have nothing common.
>
> Paints were made long before paint companies existed, and are still
> made by some artists. Here's a question for the frameworks list.:
>
> Has any filmmaker every manufactured their own film stock entirely
> from scratch? i.e. not starting with a preexisting base (even if
> clear leader) or any other already produced film-component such as
> tape with sprocket holes, and them made a film of any length with
> that stock? I don't know of a single one, unless you want to go to
> the very dawn of motion pictures and talk about the original
> inventors such as the Edison/Lumiere/etc. era when they were
> inventing everything.
>
> What remains constant in painting is a tradition, not a material,
> but how the image gets produced, interpreted and exhibited.
>
>
> ps. Sam, look at pg 45 of your Canyon Cinema catalog from 2000. I
> am part of the "supply side."
>
> Michael Betancourtwww.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>.