From: Jack Sargeant (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Sep 24 2006 - 18:54:18 PDT
>> Firstly an academic / archivist / experimental filmmaker viewpoint
>> IS NOT better or more correct than a populist understanding.
> What makes the corporate (cosy & rosy as it might be) decisions of
> PBS "populist" ?
> Is Fox News above criticism because it engenders "populist
> understanding" ?
My point was that there is an implict snobbery that somehow somebody who
is interested (for whatever reason) in experimental film has a greater
understanding of how it should be viewed or read than a casual viewer. I
used the term populist beause I was referring to broadcast television and
the general comments made by the previous poster about the nature of TV. I
have no idea about how good or bad PBS is, but the idea of TV is that it
is accessable to everybody, hence the potential to be populist.
By the way you are tying this to PBS shows when I was talking about TV
audiences and mentioned broadcast TV from Europe.
Also, I think Fox News should be criticised preisely because it DOES NOT
foster any understanding...it merely fosters paranoia.
Ironically, however, it was a Fox owned channel in Australia that screened
Further, experimental film (indeed most modern art) is deliberately about
interpretation and the way in which the viewer responds to it, so to
suggest one response (from a position of prior knowledge or experience)is
more valid is actually to misunderstand it... of course the true irony
here is Warhol was a POP artist... that word has some relevence here I
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.