Re: why we need electronic transfers of the film you shot

From: Freya (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Mar 05 2006 - 12:40:40 PST

> >
> If it were that simple, it wouldn't be a problem.
> The problem arises
> when certain works attain a level of cultural
> significance to the extent
> that many people would like to see them, but cannot
> do so without a
> great deal of (often prohibitive) expense and
> hassle. The usual forms of

I'm not sure if this is a problem, because if nobody
sees the work then it will lose it's cultural
significance anyway.

I'm not even sure that unseen work really has that
much cultural significance. How can you know how much
significance it has if you have never seen it. I'm not
sure it is as much of a problem as you suggest in that

> curiosity are not enough to justify such expense and
> hassle for most
> people. Yes, there are plenty of video transfers
> already, but there are
> just as many films that have never been transferred
> to video, often
> because the artist deems video to be an unworthy
> medium. While I have
> always maintained that I understand that an artist
> has a right to say
> "no," to video transfers of his/her work, I have
> also maintained that
> potential audiences have a right to want to see
> something. If you make a

Of course they have a right to want to see something,
but it doesn't mean they will get to see something.

> piece of art and release it "into the wild," so to
> speak, it belongs to
> the culture as much as it belongs to the artist.

I just don't really see this as being a problem. There
is loads of work out there, and a lot of artists that
have made stuff available for video projection, but
that doesn't neccesarily increase the avialability or
interest in the work.

To be honest, there is much evidence that "the
culture", whatever that might be, doesn't really care
about the work anyway, so why should it matter what
the artist does with it?

As you know I also don't agree that the culture should
necessarily have carte blanche to distort and twist
the work of the artist to its own ends. At the end of
the day they will do that anyway, but I think during
the life of the artist it's good if the artist can do
their thing. That the artist can have freedom to
express themselves.
> >> simple availability
> >> does not guarantee an increase in audience, but
> it's
> >> definitely and
> >> demonstrably a crucial first step.

> Agreed. But again, it wouldn't hurt. People are more
> likely to become
> interested in things that they have a _prayer_ of
> seeing someday, I

Well yes exactly, but the reverse is also true, people
may not be that interested in work which they have no
chance of seeing, in which case it doesn't really

> would argue. If work simply is not available to 99%
> of the population,
> then there's very little hope of widening the
> audience for it. You're

Yes but just making copies for video projection won't
change that. I mean that "city at night" film I
mentioned, is still not available to 99% of the
population. Probably more than 99%, however it is a
wonderful film and it is available for video

> right to argue that much would have to be done in
> other ways (perhaps: a
> larger number of screenings, screenings of higher
> visibility, localized
> initiatives to screen work in non-traditional and
> "non-stuffy" spaces,

maybe that would help

> active courting of mainstream press, etc.), but I

mainstream press would help, or perhaps even more
basic things like websites and stuff, who knows. Maybe
these things will come about in time.

> would counter-argue
> that very little at all can be done until there is
> some form of at least
> marginal availability--one that does not cost an arm
> and a leg for the

but there ARE works available for video projection, if
that is what you mean.

> viewer(s). If one can't even hope to ever see a
> piece of work, then what
> good does it do to simply know of its existence?

Well such works are not really relevant are they?

> That said, availability
> is a _prerequisite_ to any of the heightening of
> visibility that you're
> talking about.

Well yes.

But you see what I mean, this isn't really a video vs
film thing at all. These are more issues to do with
the economics of things etc. The film vs video thing
is a distraction and a red herring, partly because the
two can work together so well, and because people are
using them together.



Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

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