From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Mar 03 2006 - 15:21:15 PST
well there is judging in a negative way
and you know it
like calling names as u were doing
there are differnt types of judging
judging to feel superior for ego purposes
doesn't really fall in the critical theory catagory in my mind
it is more posturing cause u ain't got nothin else in ur toolbox
(in my eyes makes u a smaller being
and takes away fr: any real points u have made for ur argument)
it ends up serving no purpose that gets US anywhere
i never read a philosopher who analysed another philosophers work
and was like
it's just not of the most intelligent of tacts
i am an underground filmmaker (black gutter not white tower)
maybe read some jarman if u want 2 know what artists are about
or study art that goes a little beyond the history of impressionism
some art is not even seen by others only the artist
i don't understand ur apology - it seems superficial and purposeless
right u don't know my work
- 4 ur info i am an artist that works in ALL media
like yoko ono or joseph beuys or robert morris - ana mendieta
and loves the work of clarence schmidt
what's wrong with masturbation?
sorry u don't like it
u didn't get several things of what i was talking about in my post
my point re: film as superior was as a tech
and as picture quality (sort of)
maybe if digital was vector based it would be better but...
su fredrick's point is taken by me as that she wants 2 b understood as an
not just a mass produced product for consumption - for that sake (or
which i think takes alot of courage and intelligence to come to such a place
it also speaks of her as having an actual self
On 3/3/06, jarrod whaley. <email suppressed> wrote:
> Cari wrote:
> "it's not about whining
> it's about talking discussing reality
> why don't you stop judging
> also i think the artists/thinkers on the list are not about jon q public
> so our concerns are not there
> besides to lump ignorance is not that smart
> it is of a trueth but not complete
> as su fredrick has stated
> - i would rather have 10 people see my work and get it
> than thousands that don't -"
> Isn't judgment, in one form or another, at the very heart of all critical thinking? Without judgment, aren't we no more than slavish parrots?
> If, as you say, "the artists/thinkers on the list are not about jon q public" then what are they about? Something better? What are they, Olympic Gods? If your concerns are not those of the public, and you truly live in an ivory tower where feces has no odor, then good for you. You can do whatever you want. I'm just telling you why I personally think avoiding video at all costs is not only a form of suicide, but also an incredibly elitist and futile gesture.
> Your final point strikes me as particularly inane, I have to say. There's no guarantee that a group of ten celluloid fetishists is going to "get" your work any more than a room full of "average joes." And if you show your work to thousands of people, you may be able to find 20 or 30 people who "get" your work instead of just the 10. Those extra 10 or 20 people you don't seem to care about might actually benefit from seeing your work. It seems it's only the "in-crowd" of fetishists that you care about.
> If your work is so limited in effect that it must be seen on film and no other medium in order to be "gotten," i.e. if it is so focused on the medium that no other qualities in it are worth exploring, then nothing I have to say applies to you anyway, so just ignore me. I'm talking about work that has meaning and importance beyond self-fetishization and masturbation.
> I haven't seen your work, of course, I'm just going by the way you present it here. I apologize if any of this sounds harsh, but I felt it was called for.
> -->jarrod whaley.
> filmmaker. videographer.
> web designer. educator.
> __________________________________________________________________ For
> info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.