Re: Tanked

From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Aug 24 2006 - 11:25:08 PDT


may i suggest a study of ethical constructs re: this whole matter

i think to mark the activities of the list as marginalized
sort of babies whining
is very off
in olympia wa (and elsewhere)
many (punk) years ago
there was a practice of
pay to play in clubs
it should be needless to say that not everybody has alot of money
or even a little bit

suggesting that manhattan is aaaaallll
that different than anywhere else is off
it's not that different
there are expensive places and cheap places and things
just like everywhere - in fact the access point for cheaper may be greater
do you live here?
the 6th and b garden is funded by:
the fund for creative communities/nys council on the arsts the fund for
creative communities/nys council on the arts decentralization program/nys
council and the manhattan community arts fund/new york city department of
cultural affairs, administered by the lower manhattan cultural council
which our gardens events committee applies for annually
2 women that head the committee write the grant each year
the granting is here - it's not so far fetched that granting is available
(especially in lower manhattan - cause there is money for the 'rebuilding')
plus there have been so many screenings that do not charge here
that it just remains not true to logic to me
that it is - the only way -
as for grovenly grateful to have anyone even look at an artists work
that seems very authoritarian and not
about humility but humiliation
that is not part of my (wanted) psyche's 'toolbox'
david i don't aline w/ ur portraid cultural identity
and i wonder where/how you acquired it

On 8/23/06, David Tetzlaff <email suppressed> wrote:

I don't have
the time or the economic expertise to explain exactly how exchange value
is created for a moving image screening, but it's not inherent.


i think you are talking apples and oranges as they say
as in other instances in ur post
(common argumentating)
i don't think that just because there is a 'low' inherent monetary value
it means that one need pay to show the work
one aspect does not prove the other
just bcause u have a headache
it doesn't mean cutting off ur head is a good solution
(whether ur in a capitalist culture or not)


On 8/23/06, David Tetzlaff <email suppressed> wrote:
> Let's recap:
> A call for work is posted to the list, containing the info that an entry
> fee is required. The usual pile-on ensues, slamming the idea of entry
> fees. To be expected.
> Susan, who posted the call, replies to explain that she is a unpaid
> volunteer, and the fee is related to the costs of showing new work in
> Manhattan. Despite the fact this is a completely reasonable explanation,
> the pile-on continues.
> Frameworks is a small community of people interested in a marginalized
> artistic practice. The squabbling here resembles the sectarian disputes
> between the different revolutionary groups in Life of Brian, except it's
> not as funny.
> As I see it, if you make films, and are not an established 'name', you
> should be thankful that a programmer in Manhattan is willing to look at
> your stuff and maybe show it, by whatever means necessary. The assumption
> I would ask everyone here to re-examine is that your work has any
> intrinsic monetary value. This notion is simply not compatible with the
> way economics work within capitalism. The idea expressed earlier on the
> list that it seems bizarre to pay to get your work shown betrays an
> ideological mystification. Why is it bizarre? Because the general rule is
> "exhibtors rent prints to show them to audiences"? If you examine that
> closely, you'll see it's not true. It only applies to some kind of
> exhibitors, some kinds of work, and some kinds of audiences. I don't have
> the time or the economic expertise to explain exactly how exchange value
> is created for a moving image screening, but it's not inherent.
> I would venture to say that with the proliferation of all sorts of
> low-cost moving image equipment -- between home movies showings to friends
> and family and YouTube etc. -- the majority of movie-thing-viewing
> experiences now do not involve any sort of 'getting paid.' Experimental
> work may be miles ahead of this in aesthetic terms, but like it or not
> it's closer to home movies in economic terms.
> I know there are people who will exploit artists, and there are probably
> more people with good intentions who make promises they can't deliver on
> in the end, such as the sad story of the earlier show at The Tank. But
> mainly what I see in people who want to show stuff is heroic efforts by
> inidviduals that result in different economic situations depending on what
> kind of work is shown and where.
> Thus, for example, Jeanne is able to run what sounds like a wonderful free
> screening series in her neighborhood because she has access to free prints
> from the NYPL and a free venue in the public garden. It sounds like she
> puts in a lot of monetarily uncompensated labor in organizing the program,
> projecting it etc. Heroic. But are we to curse her because she does not
> have an open call, does not extend her labors to viewing untold numbers of
> submissions from new makers? I think not. But that cursing Susan because
> you have to pay rent on a venue in Tribeca makes about as much sense.
> Programmers who pay for work are those who are lucky enought to have some
> economic resources, be that in the form of grant money, or available
> rent-free space or whatever. Not everyone can get a grant. I would guess
> arts grants in New York are especially competitive. Volunteers cannot
> necessarily be expected to put in the extreme time commitment involved in
> hustling up grant money. Funding agencies are generally not interested in
> either programmmers or artists without an established 'track record'. I
> would also note that few programmers have a completely open-door policy.
> Even if the people they program are not 'stars' the programmer has
> probably become aware of the work through other screenings or personal
> networking.
> I can imagine that a lot of people could care less if their work is ever
> shown in Manhattan. There ARE screening venues that take new works and
> don't charge, and if you're content with the limits that come with that,
> fine. No reason to hassle Susan because her degree of difficulty (new work
> / volunteer / Manhattan) dictates artists have to chip in or the thing
> isn't going to happen. And for anyone who would like their work screened
> in Tribeca, why don't you try organizing a screening yourself instead of
> pissing on somebody else's method. Form a collective with a bunch of other
> artists, work out programming, get a suitable screening space, put out
> pub... oh yeah, that all would take TIME and MONEY and YOU'RE not getting
> paid...
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

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