From: Warren Stringer (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Jun 24 2006 - 10:48:16 PDT
Hello, I'm rather new to this list; I make multimedia synthesis software and
perform visual music.
I'm rather intrigued by this discussion: Pip mentions that there are more
experimental filmmakers in 2006, than ever. Bruce mentions that it is harder
to make a living with film. Which is it? Do most of the new screenings,
consist of film or video?
My take on film is that is its context has changed from being merely a
transport of imagery to an artifact -- much in the same way as music on
vinyl is an artifact performed by DJs. If this is the case, is film really
an experimental medium anymore? Or is it a creative anachronism?
Of course, an anachronistic medium can be very expressive; I'll take a good
grand piano over a midi controller, any day. But, is a piano at the
forefront of musical experimentation?
As for experimental media: isn't it more experimental to try to elicit a
response from someone through an image emerging from the palm of her hand?
This social context is very recent and unexplored. Isn't that what
experimentation is all about? What has yet to be explored in film, that
cannot be explored with another kind of medium?
>>This is such a crazy dialogue for the year 2006. How many
>>filmmakers working in film are there? How much longer will they
>>work, no matter what their gender, etc. It is just hard to make
>>films and get them shown, no matter who you might be. Even if all
>>of the above was not the case, then as Standish Lawder recently
>>queried, why is that film and filmmakers are so quickly forgotten
>>no matter how significant their accomplishment. This only seems to
>>be the case with film not the other arts.
>There are more and more filmmakers in 2006; it is not hard to make
>work, no harder than it was in 1996 or in 1986; there are more and
>more venues and ways to get work seen than ever before.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.