From: Mark Hancock (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Sep 24 2006 - 05:17:44 PDT
Surely on one level it 'doesn't matter' that (TV) documentary makers
play around with the formats etc? What I mean by this is that, they
are making programs for a general audience most of the time.
Although, as Jack says, the South Bank Show here in the UK has done
some harsh things with Velvet photo's, maybe they also did some good
in introducing them to people who might otherwise have not known so
much about them.
What I'm trying to say is that these programs help draw new interest
to a subject and then it's up to those people to go for a deeper
level of content if they wish. I couldn't count the amount of times
some simplified account of an art/film subject has piqued my
curiousity and then I've gone deeper.
The thing that is important however, is that people do at some point
in time have access to the original material and can then discover it
all over again, in it's proper ratio and format. There's plenty of
people on this list doing that.
On 24 Sep 2006, at 10:46, Jack Sargeant wrote:
> but then the archival world is removed from production and the
> vagaries of funding tv shows and so on... more to the point I'm not
> sure there can be a correct use of archive, I mean who gets to say
> what is correct use of archive? I remember the South Bank Show (UK)
> doing a special on the Velvet's and doing some shocking things with
> archive photos, but then other people liked the show, so...
>> I think it's important that the archival world stand up and try
>> to stop this nonsense. Fine to honor the good, but I think it's
>> also important to point out the serious abuses, of which this is
>> certainly one.
>> Jeff Kreines
>> Coosada, Alabama
>> 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>.