From: James Kreul (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 15:45:52 PDT
> 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.
I'm not sure if I buy the loss of tradition argument. I agree with many
assessments posted so far about differences between a-g film and gallery
video/film practices. But I'm not sure if I see it as quite the same alarm
bell/red flag that you're suggesting.
This is not the first time such a tension has existed between two sets of
artistic practices within experimental film, nor will it be the last. Look
at the survey of Ford Foundation film grant applicants printed in an early
Film Comment (I can look up the issue if you're interested). You get a
several professional independent filmmakers very concerned about the
amateurism of the emerging NY and SF experimental film scenes. They seem to
see it as a genuine threat to their own institutional support, and a threat
to the art of filmmaking as a whole. But in my opinion that
aesthetic/institutional tension and hostility was not only poorly grounded,
it ended up being counter productive for independent film as a whole.
Similarly, while I'm all for making aesthetic stances and distinguishing
aesthetic assumptions, I'm not sure how well grounded the hostility towards
gallery video art seen in this thread is, nor am I convinced that it would
ever be particularly productive if it became focused and organized.
To go back to my post earlier about my optimism about experimental
practices: people will continue to make stuff, no matter what we might worry
about here in these discussions. Nothing stated so far has convinced me of
otherwise. Some of that stuff will be gallery video, which may or may not
be a good thing. But some of that stuff will not be gallery video, because
not everyone will have access to galleries (or fill in the blank with access
to other institutional distinctions). And even if alternative spaces decide
to mimic gallery practices, there will still be those who won't want to
pursue those practices. Some people will create stuff completely oblivious
to experimental and/or gallery video practices. But some people will look
to historical models for inspiration, and they will decide to participate in
the tradition if that history and those materials are available to them.
To put it simply: The continuation of the experimental tradition is not
dependent on the success or failure of gallery video, or any such notion.
Will gallery video dominate things in the future? Well, maybe. In fact,
for the sake of argument, let's say yes, gallery video will be dominant and
more visible than experimental film/video making if it isn't already. But
there are a lot of things that "dominate" experimental filmmaking right now
(and always). So I'm not worried about it any more than I'm worried about
bad work being produced in the future.
James Kreul
UNC-Wilmington
email suppressed
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.