From: db (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Mar 04 2006 - 19:10:36 PST
I, for one, am not calling non-artists (I assume you were previously
referring to the same crowd when you used the term John Q Public)
inherently cretinous. I would call a number of them lost souls in
search of fulfillment through predominantly empty channels, doomed to
jump on the latest bandwagon as a means of validating their existence
in the eyes of what is fed to them on a regular basis as "how to fit
in with your peers." The suicides I have known, the drudges who
complain about their asshole bosses or companies, yet return to the
same job for thirty years only to be fired because they are no longer
"productive" to the machine (oh, by the way, that pension we promised
you? sorry) who, I believe, represent the majority of the American
population, consistently have any creativity drummed out of them. We
are indoctrinated to believe that few are "gifted" with creativity
and, from this, arises the accusation of elitist, or the idea that
teaching art in the public school system is a waste of money (why
would we need critical thinkers?).
I also cannot in any way understand how medium of expression has
anything to do with cultural relevance except on the most superficial
did you create that with final cut pro?
No. I created it with my brain and heart. But, yes, I did use final
Hannah Hoch used scissors and paper. Her work remains culturally
relevant even though the Nazi's are no longer in power. (Oh, wait a
To try to break out of this cul de sac your arguments keep running
around in, the benefit I see as a "moving image" artist who hasn't
shot film for 20 years (gasp!), is the expansion of voices these
"video" technologies have helped to facilitate. I too wish that more
"film" works were available in a medium I could study without
worrying about destroying it slowly with every projection. But I
don't think that requires the death of film (besides, I see these
kinds of options as ways to lead me to seeing the originals, if such
a term is appropriate to a "mass" media, just as listening to an mp3
might lead me to buying a CD or, even better, seeing the artist
perform live. Just as Marinetti's manifesto didn't result in the
death of painting, the rise of digital technologies need not mean the
death of film.
As a final (?) comment, the idea of "owning" works is its own form of
fetishistic elitism, harkening back to a desire to possess that
emperors, then kings, then popes, then burghers, then industrialists,
then Robin Leach(es) celebrated as signs of success.
"Look at me Ma, I'm on top of the world!" (Arthur 'Cody' Jarrett in
On Mar 4, 2006, at 12:51 AM, jarrod whaley. wrote:
> Calling the public a bunch of morons who have no right to see art
> is certainly an elitist attitude, by anyone's definition. If the
> public at large is traditionally unappreciative of truly artistic
> work, maybe the prevalence of attitudes like those I'm arguing
> against is at least one of the factors contributing to such a
> situation. I certainly will not say that all non-artists are
> inherently cretinous.
> I never said anything about working with film being a futile
> gesture. What's becoming increasingly clear is that my call for a
> more culturally relevant avant-garde cinema is futile, at least in
> this particular forum.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.