Re: the word is out: experimental film is...

From: Steven Budden (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Mar 03 2006 - 19:01:47 PST

Artists who work in their chosen medium are elitist? Their gestures are
futile? What a bizarre rant.
Art is not for John Q Public (whoever that is) and historically never was.
You're living in a fantasy land where feces do stink, or you're not making Art.
I think what she's saying is she'd rather be making her own Art work in
anonymity than be a slave to the populace, seeking approval from those who don't
possess the knowledge needed to understand her work. Not to put words in her
mouth. But I understand the point.
For instance, there are probably four people that I know of in the world who
understand/ appreciate my paintings. I am working off subtleties in art
history that viewers needs to be aware of just like most late modern and many
post modern painters. Those four people mean a lot. Even if it were only one
apart from me, it wouldn't be masturbation obviously.
Many of history's best works of art don't survive the transition from one
medium to another. For instance, Beckett and Joyce don't translate well into
film, because they're about words and the limitation of words.
Anyway, my two odorless cents (tossed down from my ivory citadel).

PS. Oh yeah, my dear old mother loves all my paintings. Five.
In a message dated 3/3/2006 2:39:41 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
email suppressed writes:

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.


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