Re: labels/original intent of post

From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jul 02 2006 - 11:50:40 PDT

On 7/1/06, Mitsu Hadeishi <email suppressed> wrote:
> ...
> 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.

pissing in the wind
means pissing on urself
it is "pissing into the wind" as i am remembering now
(to be ginormously anal about word meaning to make a point)
do you mean pissing into the wind as in pissing on urself?
or just like pissing as in wasteful somehow?

i very much was into the different languages post as were u
and how english-centric this conversation is
it was interesting to see how image/object-action based the japanese
language is

> 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
> taste.
> 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.

well i don't know
'technology' isn't precisely what is the totality of the difficulty
it is actually more to do w/ aesthetic - ya know 'beauty' and the study of
which is a ginormous thing - maybe not everybody-everybody knows that but...
as a 'professional' in post (film and video)
i have seen the side by side comparisons of video
(yes HD) and film
video has less information on screen - period
what does less information 'mean'?
well less information can mean different things to different people but...
less information can mean other things besides technological interests
(technology can simply be a catalyst)
i for one respect both hi-fi and lo-fi
and in that am super happy and i super respect
kirosowa's (for one) choice of use of 35mm film - esp. B&W
and as well my friend lilith's 'film' "mirror box stories"
use of 16mm and pixelvision
which interestingly she made universally look raw
i think the debate is not as reductive / reductively limited as the way u

i am super not sure video will surpass film
i reference in my mind the beauty of this handmade car that i know about
it was made in the 1930's hand tooled on a lathe and hand metalsmithed
now the argument in my head goes further but to focus this
cars made now may have computer carburetors - fuel injectors
are they 'better' - as u see future formats will be
no not to me present day cars are not at all 'better'
'better' can b relative -
now maybe if we are comparing cars to transporting
- like in star trek as we were posting about -
then i could say there are better things about it but
still then i would not go into totality - totally 'better'


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