Re: pathology of film

From: Joost Rekveld (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jun 11 2006 - 12:29:23 PDT

On 11 Jun 2006, at 20:20, Jonathan Walley wrote:

> Along those lines, I'd be interested in hearing from anyone on the
> list who makes this type of work - films without film (or involving
> some substantial reconfiguration of film as we know it). Do you think
> of it as film or something else?

I think a huge difference between such work then and such work now is
that back then these 'substantial reconfigurations of film' were
reflections on the whole of the moving image industry, in which film
(celluloid) was still the dominant medium.
Using celluloid (or the absence of it) for such performances now will
perhaps aquire a new, historical dimension of meaning, but it will have
certainly lost the edge of being a reflection on current moving image

what do you think ?

On 11 Jun 2006, at 19:14, Tom B Whiteside wrote:

> >Now there's a conceptual art /experimental film project: create a
> work in
> >16mm designed to be destroyed over time by bad projection and inept
> >splicing. The work would not be 'finished' until a certain extreme
> degree
> >of random deterioration had occured over a number of years -- also

Isn't that part of the 'Film in which there appear sprocket holes, edge
etcet c' project ?
What's their name again, Birgit Hein and ...




                         Joost Rekveld


"The mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible"
(Oscar Wilde)


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