From: Anna Biller (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Mar 12 2006 - 14:51:31 PST
Oh, I didn't mean that YOU used hobby in a derogatory way. I just had
the sense that the reason David went into seriousness of many different
hobbies is, there was an earlier post that seemed to suggest that a
hobby is a bad thing, and that filmmaking can never be a hobby because
is is practiced by cultured elites. So I think it made people want to
justify hobbies in general. And I really do think it has to do with how
much time you spend on things. I have 2 degrees in painting, I spent
years doing it, but the last few years I only do it once in a while,
because I do film instead. So now I think painting has become a hobby
for me. It's a hobby because I almost never find the time to do it, and
it doesn't relate anymore to my "real" work. But what you're talking
about is people considered hobbyists just because they don't earn a
living at their art/ filmwork. I agree, that's absurd.
On Mar 12, 2006, at 2:20 PM, Marilyn Brakhage wrote:
> On Sunday, March 12, 2006, at 09:24 AM, Anna Biller wrote:
>> I think the word hobby is being used as a derogatory word here.
> It was not my intention to suggest that filmmaking is "better" than
> any other activity. I agree with you that whether something is a
> hobby or not "has to do with the inner structure of the person doing
> it . . . " And I don't think "hobby" necessarily has a negative
> meaning. I do think that the word "art" is sometimes used too
> loosely, however, and therefore can tend to lose real meaning. But
> that does not at all imply that any other activities are necessarily
> "lesser" in value. Different is not lesser. . . .Also, of course,
> there are many different kinds of artists, and sometimes they are
> under appreciated, misunderstood, and so on.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.