Re: Cropping Art -- where is the outrage?

From: James Kreul (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Sep 22 2006 - 13:47:53 PDT

> In the case of this television show, there is no economic reason not
> to show the work in its original aspect ratio. There's only the
> arrogance and stupidity of the producer of the teevee show to blame
> here.

Again, I agree with the general complaint, but I'm not sure about arrogance
and stupidity...

If this were an issue for the Warhol Foundation (or whomever licensed use of
the artwork and film clips), I'm sure they could have restricted use to the
correct aspect ratio for the films. In fact, I'm confident that they could
have demanded such a change if they felt strongly about it after seeing a
first cut. So, given the degree of control the films are subject to, I'd
blame the gatekeepers.

I don't know much about the economics of PBS nationwide programming these
days, but there may in fact have been an economic reason for doing the doc
in 16:9 rather than 4:3...perhaps promising stations who made the move to HD
a certain number of hours in HD programming? Just a guess. And given a
scenario like that, there may be some resistance from certain stations to
having not only the 16:9 bars but also the pillowboxing within that. On an
small old TV that ends up being pretty darn small. Again, just pure
speculation, but seems more likely than pure arrogance and stupidity.

James Kreul
University of North Carolina Wilmington
email suppressed

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