From: Madison Brookshire (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Mar 06 2006 - 13:01:48 PST
On 3/4/06, Mitsu Hadeishi <email suppressed> wrote:
> I hate to add to what seems to be an increasingly polarized debate, but
> I think the whole point is utterly missed here: we are just talking about
> medium. The medium has properties. Art can be made out of any medium, it
> can be made with video, film, HD, VHS, flip books, crayons, whatever. I
> certainly would never tell anyone they must shoot on HD, but I would say
> people who imply (and this is the implication of many postings in this
> recurring thread) that real artists only shoot on film, or only show their
> work on film --- I think this idea is utterly ridiculous.
I agree. Art can be made with anything. People working in video deserve a
fair shake. To me, that isn't the point. As the article that started this
thread illustrates, people are not being made aware of the differences in
material. As some of the only people on earth who actually give a shit about
this subject, it makes sense to me that when someone writes a "thank god we
don't have to watch films on film anymore!" article, the list would
This is not to say that video transfers of films aren't useful or that video
is inherently inferior to any other form of art-making. Just that we should
know and, yes, care about the difference.
Val Verde, CA
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.