From: Steven Budden (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 15:27:45 PDT
I understand but I don't see what it has to do with me? Link your work with whatever tradition you like and allow others to do the same.
Also, we haven't made film stock because we haven't needed to. When filmmakers needed to they did (see early film inventors you mentioned).
Whether you're paranoid or not, I see film available down the street, so I'm going to go buy some and make a film.
I was actually considering experimenting with liquid emulsions on film base (see my previous post on that). Since I don't have to "create the base from scratch" I'm not going to worry about that so much. And I'm using Fomapan at the moment, not Kodak. If Kodak doesn't support AG film AG film shouldn't support Kodak.
Steven
"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?"
-----Original Message-----
From: owen <email suppressed>
To: email suppressed
Sent: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:32:07 -0400
Subject: Re: political and power relationships
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>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.