From: Bernard Roddy (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2008 - 09:17:04 PST
Excellent, Freya, excellent. Hatfield acknowledges
the use of criteria but calls for "transparency,"
exposure of the agendas and interests at stake. In
place of trying to "make room" we could better
understand what language like "master of . . "
achieves, what factors constrain the nature of the
risks that can be taken. (I sometimes get the feeling
that criticism would better conceive itself as in
greater need of preservation than film, that the work
discussed does not suffer from any sort of lack, and
that writing is thus free to pursue its agendas at
will, wearing them on its sleeve.)
--- Freya <email suppressed> wrote:
> I just stumbled across this posting to Frameworks .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. . .
In one sense it's fine to have lists, if they enable
access and further knowledge, as long as the criteria
for selection are transparent - as long as the reasons
for the choice are clear - the agendas (there are
always agendas)are apparent. Maya Deren was a
relentless self promoter and wouldnt take no for an
answer by all accounts - so I'll end with that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - ----
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.