From: john porter (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2006 - 12:58:29 PDT
--- Pip Chodorov <email suppressed> wrote:
> I'm sorry but I don't agree at all.
> A video of a Brakhage film is not a video.
> It is a video reproduction to be sure, but the work
> is a film.
It WAS a film. Or still is, but somewhere else (e.g.
at the archives). It's not that video in your hand,
and you can feel the difference between film and video
in your hand, with your eyes closed.
> Show someone a video of Mothlight and they will
> recognize the work,
> "Mothlight" as a Brakhage "film," simply.
> I would have thought this was intuitive.
That's the problem. It's intuitive, not logical.
> What may be less intuitive, for younger generations
> especially, is
> the reverse. A projected image is probably for many
> people a "film"
> whether the beam is from a video projector or a film
> projector, and
> whether the source material was electronic or
> silver-halide based.
You're not the reverse of younger generations if both
you and they refer to that video projection as a
Really, what other word do we have to refer
exclusively to that medium which is always viewed by
passing light through a strip of clear acetate? It
creates real shadows on the wall! It's so primitive,
but magical and beautiful! What's the word for that,
and JUST that (not video projection)?
John Porter, Toronto, Canada
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.