Re: labels/original intent of post

From: Mitsu Hadeishi (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Jul 01 2006 - 20:36:36 PDT

On Saturday 01 July 2006 16:19, k. a.r. wrote:
> ******WHY ? At that point, it WAS a video. BTW, if sundance projects film
> on video with digital projection, that is just another proof that they are
> such a poser festival. I hope they don't still call themselves a film
> festival..IMHO******

Yes, calling her film a "video" because it was shot on HD is ridiculous. It
simply flies in the face of what people expect the word "video" to mean,
which has many connotations of poor contrast, odd gamma curves, and low
resolution. Quite obviously, you havent even seen her work.

It's hard for me to grasp how people can become so absurdly literal about
words (and, as Gary pointed out, this entire debate is English-centric --- in
some other languages the word for what we call a"film" might not even refer
to the specific medium of film per se, rendering the entire discussion quite

You must realize, as well, that your implication that by showing Miranda's
work on digital projection that this is an indication of them being a "poser
festival" is, whether you meant it that way or not, quite insulting to
someone who created a beautiful work of art which won awards not only at
Sundance but at Cannes. Though you haven't seen her work, you decide to make
cavalier remarks like this just on the basis of the medium and the format of
projection --- which is silly as well as chauvanistic.

> *****I don't think so. "reasonably high resolution" haha that's funny.
> What is "reasonably high resolution"? that's so vague. but seriously, I'm
> really interested to know what is "reasonably high resolution". *******

You say you "don't think so" yet what I am saying is obviously the case.
People just don't use the word "film" in the way that you and some others are
insisting it be used. It has come to mean something more synonymous
with "movie" and it's pissing in the wind to fantasize about a world where
this hasn't occurred.

Regarding "haha that's funny" I don't want to bother with yet another tiresome
debate about format. I totally appreciate the fact that the medium has an
effect on the artwork produced. Nevertheless as I've stated before I find
the attachment of some to the absolute exclusion of other formats a bit
extreme. I've read Dorsky's book and I am very inspired by his remarks, yet
I am also drawn to the artistic possibilities of digital production. I
intend to make work on HD and I'm sure there will be better formats coming
out later ... at some point the resolution and contrast of digital will meet
or exceed that of film --- of course it will remain different, but the
artistic rationale for preferring film will have become merely a matter of

It's sad, from my point of view, to see so many people who could contribute to
the continuing art of making moving images stuck in what amounts to a debate
over technology. I find that debate far less interesting than making things
with what is at hand, whatever it is.

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