From: 40 Frames (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jan 24 2007 - 19:01:00 PST
> Aside from the obvious differences in the making of film vs video the
> truth is many people are now watching work (created on various
> formats) on DVD / video. And, I think increasingly online, thanks to
> sites such as ubuweb and so on which feature numerous experimental
> works. (BTW: I own a copy of Conrad's FLICKER as an enhanced CD
> computer file extra that came with a CD box set of his work released
> by Table of the Elements). As to how 'we' discuss film or video, 'we'
> tend to focus on the process of creation, but to audiences what
> matters is the ease by which they can see them, and, increasingly, at
> home on the computer monitor would appear to be the answer (as a
> curator I am not necessarily happy about this, but it does seem to be
> what is happening).
Access to films has always been a concern for those interested in
alternatives to mainstream film practice, however I'd hate to think that
the internet is somehow an adequate means of see work originating on film.
I certainly enjoy the work posted on the NFB site as with the sites of
various other archives now posting contents from their collection on the
web, but I don't like to think of this being the only means to see work. I
think of it as getting a glimpse, but nothing more. Not the best use of
funds for access, given other options.
> Regarding the film / video, what should / should not be discussed
> here, isn't it the notion of EXPERIMENTAL that matters to most of
> those on frameworks? Surely if somebody wanted to discuss say Harry
> Smith's paintings or Jack Smith's theatre then they should be able
> to do so here, despite the fact that art and theatre are not film!
And folks certainly do, the discussions shoot off in all directions.
425 SE 3rd, #400
Portland, OR 97214
+1 503 231 6548
Skype ID: frames40
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.