From: Michael Betancourt (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 16:21:10 PDT
>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?
I am not saying that its dependent on it. What is happening is the film community is (has?) alienated many who it didn't need to, and that this has resulted in the steady loss of "new blood" critically and a general confusion between the two traditions.
Also, I would say (and I think I have) that gallery video dominates now. That galleries feel it's appropriate to screen work from the ag tradition that was never shown other than in a "black box" (theatrical-type) setting in the white cube of the gallery--no seats, lights on, no clear start or stop, etc. (the showing of Warhol's films as described in earlier comment is typical) is the presentational approach that is gallery video not only being dominant, but replacing any other tradition that might exist. Let's be really clear about this: That is what concerns me here. It is a sign that ag-film-as-a-tradition is in retreat.
The comparison you mentioned between professional and amateur film production is a red herring. Both works assumed a theatrical type presentation with an audience that watched through from beginning to end. That is not the case with gallery video and the ag film tradition, an argument about appropriate style is not the same as a fundamental question about how to screen and watch the work.
Michael Betancourtwww.cinegraphic.net
the avant-garde film & video blog
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.