From: Fred Camper (email suppressed)
Date: Tue May 13 2008 - 13:01:39 PDT
Adam Hyman wrote:
> But your comment about it being overrated is the most sanctimonious comment
> thus far. Itıs not over rated or underrated it had specific qualities
> that people found appropriate to their art. It also has a look that is
> different from the more current and ³flexible² stocks. Thatıs all.
This gets it exactly right, and shows the openness I was talking about,
as did Dominic's later post about film stocks. Each stock has particular
qualities, and while to one filmmaker one stock might seem "better" than
another, serious avant-garde filmmakers as a group do not "agree" that
one stock is better than another, because they understand that different
emulsions have different qualities that might be appropriate in
different situations or to different filmmakers. It is Carlile's one
standard fits all standard of "better" that is rigid. A "magenta shift"
could be desired by some filmmakers, as might the particular look of a
print made from a Kodachrome original. And as for rigidity, individual
filmakers may take particular approaches, but the movement as a whole
shows a lot more diversity than mainstream documentaries and mainstream
To deride an artist for loving her or his materials is so far beyond the
pale, and flies in the face of so much of the history of art in all
media, that I can't even respond coherently except to say that I would
suggest that anyone who does so should not be taken seriously.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.