From: Michael Betancourt (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jun 28 2006 - 18:39:10 PDT
> I don't think meaning arises from anything except people who make
> > interpretations.
> that means you are a phenomenologist
> and a anthropocentric thinker
Well, since we are talking about a class of artifact called "art" and humans
are the only ones I know of who make "art" and assign meaning to it, in
this instance, yes I am.
But, my views are much more like those of the complex adaptive systems
theorists who describe all interactions as "interpretations"
- how sad -
> i am more of a rationalist
> i have respect for all life forms
I don't see how you got that I am not/do not from what I have said here or
elsewhere in the past.
> Which returns the question of what makes this "good"
> > you're talking about, or by implication, what makes a work "bad"?
> judgements of good and bad
> prerequisite that good and bad actually exist
> in an unmutable form
Now we're getting someplace! So there's no good or bad. :) I like that
So when screening committees make decisions at experimental festivals
(several have recently been discussed) what criteria determine who gets
shown, not shown, who wins money, who doesn't? Even if we don't call these
criteria good/bad, what should we be calling them?
Des Moines, IA USA
the avant-garde film & video blog
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.