From: James Kreul (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 22:12:25 PDT
> Thanks for the correction.
> That's very interesting, since what you're describing is (maybe?) the art
> world gallery persentational version emerging, and being recognized at the
> time for the dangers it posed to the ag film tradition. 40 years later, we can
> see the results. I would like to see that discussion, too.
Well, it gets complicated, and I had a few things in mind when I wrote that
later response. In relation to the Ford applicants, you have a mix of
experimental, documentary, and narrative folks clearly objecting to the
non-professionalism of some of the stuff going on in NYC (I could be wrong
about specific exhibition references in the Ford stuff, but it was clearly
part of the general debate). Then you get Jack Smith's response to the
question: Provide a sketch of your career as a filmmaker. He drew a doodle
of himself and a projector with light beams curling in waves to a screen.
Just the kind of thing that would drive the professionals crazy--not taking
the profession (or professional questionnaires) seriously. You can also
read some of that tension in some issues of Film Culture.
So, it was what we now call the heyday of the 1960s emerging, underground
stuff, very separate from art galleries (for the most part). That seemed
formless, poorly articulated, etc. to a lot of people at the time.
My point was: a lot of people objected to the tradition that you (and I) now
value. And reading that 40 years later, it always strikes me: why didn't
they just stick together? or at least not attack each other? We're still
dealing with the consequences of those divisions.
James Kreul
UNC-Wilmington
email suppressed
>
> Now then, I have no objection to video art. Some is good, some is better than
> others, but as we noted at the start of this disucssion, the rewards paid to
> the top tier of video art are (much) higher than to the top tier of
> avant-garde film. The differences in exhibition, etc. are only a symptom of
> this situation, and it is a broader series of issues that we need to focus on
> than whether a work is on film, video or something else--which has been my
> point throughout this talk. I feel like a discussion about where a path
> through the forest might lie has turned into an argument about what kinds of
> trees are growing in that forest, and which trees are approved trees and which
> aren't. [Thus my frustration.]
>
>
> on an aside,
> Perhaps the future for film stock is a tiny niche market like any other art
> supply. That would be great !but I have my doubts. Either way, the viablity
> for that market is based in two suppositions that I don't want to debate the
> particulars of--I'm pointing them out to make a broader point about this
> situation. These may or may not be true: that stocks can be manufactured for
> such a market at a cost that renders it economically viable, and, in the long
> term this is much more significant whether there will be enough demand for
> such a product. I'm not talking about 5 or 10 years from now, but 25 years
> after the stock houses have stopped making it entirely. (I imagine it will be
> like the buggywhip market is today, very specialized and extremely limited.)
> I'm somewhat interested in archaic technologies; perhaps I'll look up the
> fundamental patents for film stocks and related technologies. That might make
> an interesting collection of materials for the die-hard film people (and no,
> I'm serious. Please contact me off list if you would be interested. I've
> been collecting film patents for some time now with projects of this type in
> mind.)
>
>
> p.s. Sam--I've always been partial to what the Cheshire Cat said to Alice:
> "We're all mad here." ...
>
> Michael Betancourt
> www.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>.