From: James Kreul (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 18:27:31 PDT
> But deep down below the surface isn't that what all this talk is
> about, what work should and shouldn't be supported? Isn't that
> agenda about making sure no bad work ever gets made in the
> future, or at least we preserve the good work? Doesn't some of
> this hand-wringing come down to competitative aesthetics?
Ultimately, yes, but given the limited resources discussed in this thread
and others I also think it's worth thinking about strategy and how to use
ones time. I just don't think it's a good strategy to attack video art (or
the aspects you disagree with), I think it's a better strategy to advocate
what you do want to see by making it and developing audiences for it. Are
the DIY kids worrying about all of this? I doubt it. I think they'd rather
make stuff. Should art school kids worry about this? Probably. But
there's a difference between not supporting bad work and attacking it as if
it were an enemy to be defeated. The latter takes up too much energy, and
is not always the most productive in the long run.
If I were to discuss this with someone embedded in the gallery scene, for
example, the folks back in Madison at the Madison Museum of Contemporary
Art, who are building a new venue and need to think about film/video
presentation, I don't think I'd start out by attacking all of the current
assumptions in gallery video and why they're wrong. I think I'd try to make
connections between the experimental film history and these distinctly
separate developments as a means to encourage rather than discourage.
Then again, the most memorable manifestos in art history are written in
attack mode. So what do I know?
James Kreul
UNC-Wilmington
email suppressed
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.