From: Vera Brunner-Sung (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Sep 22 2006 - 13:51:45 PDT
This would seem to be the realm of the Warhol Foundation or whoever licensed
the use of the films. I imagine they could (and should!) outline the
parameters for use of these images.
On 9/22/06, Ed Halter <email suppressed> wrote:
> I'm not as outraged at the works being cropped in docs like Ric Burns's or
> that tepid WHO WANTS TO CALL IT ART from a few months ago -- after all,
> there are many cases in art documentaries in which a painting is not shown
> in full, in order to accentuate a certain detail etc., and there's the
> aspect in which these films are being shown both for their status as art
> for their content -- as records of the time as much as products of the
> However, I am more annoyed the practice of not noting on-screen or in
> voiceover that the footage is in fact a work by the artist (or in some
> another artist like Jonas Mekas or Marie Mencken) until the final credits,
> if at all. In these cases, viewers don't even know they are seeing a clip
> from an artist's work instead of say, a home movie from the period, or
> news footage. All these different sources tend to be equalized by the
> documentary editing process, and I find this to be more insulting and
> misleading than the cropping itself. They should be given equal weight to
> any other artwork shown in a documentary that is ostensibly about art --
> paintings and sculptures are noted as such, so should an artist's films.
> Ed H.
> > From: Jeff Kreines <email suppressed>
> > Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed
> > Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:35:14 -0500
> > To: <email suppressed>
> > Subject: Re: Cropping Art -- where is the outrage?
> > On Sep 22, 2006, at 1:27 PM, Adam Trowbridge wrote:
> >> I've heard that there are art history books that have produced COLOR
> >> paintings in BLACK AND WHITE. It's just shocking, where will the
> >> madness
> >> end?
> > Cute, Adam.
> > But there's a difference. The art history books are under economic
> > constraints, and often are using a small B&W photo of art as mere
> > identification.
> > 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.
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.