From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Oct 24 2005 - 16:40:41 PDT
--- greggibiermannmumubbazooPOPTONLINEET> wrote:
>I
> don't see how it can be faulted for being either
> academic or pedantic
> using the definitions you have provided.
why?
please embellish ur statement with an argument
why don't you think
his work is...
> > 4. Scholarly to the point of being unaware of
> the
> >outside world.
Pedantic:
> >Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious
> concern
> >for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic
> >attention to details.
> >
> >
> >SYNONYMS pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish,
> >scholastic. These adjectives mean marked by a
> narrow,
> >often tiresome focus on or display of learning and
> >especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing
> >style; an academic insistence on precision; a
> bookish
> >vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech;
> scholastic
> >and excessively subtle reasoning.
> >
how is it not academic/pedantic in this way???
--- grgreggibiermannmumubbazooPOPTONLINEET> wrote:
> A piece like Recoder's "Linea" is almost entirely
> about one's sensory
> experiences of these bars of light moving on the
> screen and in the room
> and not at all intellectual or about facts (trivial
> or otherwise).
how are
sensory experiences and
bars of light moving on the screen and in the room
NOT FACTS and NOT about FACTS
and NOT intellectual?
i don't know the specific work of here you speak
however i do know the work i have seen doesn't even
pretend to do what you hope of the one you state
how is it again
--- grgreggibiermannmumubbazooPOPTONLINEET> wrote:
>not at all intellectual or about facts (trivial
> or otherwise).?
please inform me (us)
i really would like to know
--- grgreggibiermannmumubbazooPOPTONLINEET> wrote:
>I think the
> crux of our
> difficulty lies in what you are calling soul.
i wouldn't call this "our difficulty"
i think soulfull is quantifiable
and i am defining the word within it's proper realm
it's not just a matter of opinion
(a common claim on the list re: disagreements -
apparently)
as we have recently been talking of mcdonalds
i will reference them
anyone -with common sense- knows full well
in entirety that mcdonalds has no soul
starbucks has no soul -
some sidewalks have more soul i believe -
lots of things on the planet really do have no soul
some murderers engage in 'eating' souls
how soulless can you be?
that is a black hole of soullessness
are you saying there isn't soullessness on our planet?
there isn't soullessness in the AG?
def. soulless:
Lacking sensitivity or the capacity for deep feeling.
what is feel(ing)
(this is a limited scope but...)
1.
1. To perceive through the sense of touch:
feel the velvety smoothness of a peach.
2. To perceive as a physical sensation: feel
a sharp pain; feel the cold.
2.
1. To touch.
2. To examine by touching.
3. To test or explore with caution
4.
1. To undergo the experience of: felt my
interest rising; felt great joy.
2. To be aware of; sense: felt the anger of
the crowd.
3. To be emotionally affected by: She still
feels the loss of her dog.
5.
1. To be persuaded of (something) on the
basis of intuition, emotion, or other indefinite
grounds: I feel that what the informant says may well
be true.
2. To believe; think: She felt his answer to
be evasive.
+++++++++++++++++++++
as i spoke of in another related thread
feelings are felt moreover in the body
people pass out at viewing some films
people gaspe at some films
they laugh - they...
i don't think any of that is goin down with recoders
films - is it? correct me if i am wrong
i don't think that anything is felt/thought
by the audience even remotely like what
the audience felt/thought when Billy Holiday
sung "Strange Fruit" for the first time
or even the last
please tell me the point of making art that
doesn't even strive for such levels
let alone tries to negate the exsistence
by compartmentalizing out
thanks for revealing ur protection policies
it is fully understandable
i am not just being argumentative for that sake
i am very curious what an artist
--- greggibiermannmumubbazooPOPTONLINEET> wrote:
> Perhaps
> being guilty of
> soullessness myself,
has to say about the act of making/showing such work
the work 2 me is just not deep
it's not deep or A FILM
A FILM isn't just film going thru a projector
reductivism YAY!
i am happy to view even a film in a show
where there is one frame (or less)
stapled to, glued to the wall
and a projector on a pedestal next to it
but if the one frame (or less) has no content
well then i wouldn't be exactly down with it
(yes projectors have inherent content
some more than others - it would be in the accounting)
maybe if i was starving to death would i eat at
mcdonalds and feel satisfied but
(mcdonalds food generally not only has little
nutritional value what's more the body has to use it's
own minerals to digest such foods)
here where we have the loud lushness of
performance/curators/filmmakers such as bradley eros
(to name just one)
why would i want to be in the desert of recoder
to clean our pallet like ginger w/ sushi - maybe so
but i would rather look at a black screen
and listen to the projector
as a cleaner
instead of anticipating the growth of a film
(like in a narrative)
just to watch it reduce in remaining
what is the point of this analytical fanaticism
this compartmentalizing to the point of cuttting
oneself off to the rest of the tools in the toolbox
to the point of the work just being the tools
and the toolbox w/ nothing behind the eyes
it's like watching Sisyphus but less
as the myth has historical relevance
c
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.