Re: 'fetish'

From: Fred Camper (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Feb 10 2006 - 07:47:01 PST

David, my questions were sincere, and I will reply to you and others; I
just haven't had the time to do so yet due to the press of work and
deadlines; I make a living as a journalist.

You apparently missed the attempt at humor in my reply to "fetish." But
you know, just because Marx said or wrote something doesn't make every
application of what he said valid. Didn't Marx also once say, "I am not
a Marxist"?

Your explanation actually seems more obnoxious to me than your post
would have seemed had you meant "fetish" in a Freudian sense. Show me
the evidence, please, that I pay "too much attention" to the unique
properties of film versus video "at the expense of attention to other
things." Most of my writing on film doesn't refer to the 24 fps
succession-of-stills "essence of cinema" at all. What little I've
written on Kubelka doesn't focus exclusively on the filmic nature of his
work. Just because you want to quote Marx doesn't make it right when you
violate an artist's wishes for his work. Just because you title a
message "steal this message" doesn't make stealing right either.

Fred Camper

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.