From: Steve Polta (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2008 - 15:34:48 PDT
Yes. This is all very interesting.
It may be worth mentioning at this point in the discussion that Bruce Conner has recently withdrawn his famous and influential films from distribution. No more rentals from Canyon of A MOVIE, MONGOLOID, etc. to schools, museums, microcinemas or ad agencies. I don't know his reasons but there you go. Indeed, the free-wheeling Bruce Conner has always (or at least for a long time) been perhaps more controlling of the contexts in which his work is displayed than any artist I know of (other than those who have withdrawn completely).
--- On Wed, 6/11/08, Beverly O'Neill <email suppressed> wrote:
> From: Beverly O'Neill <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: The Politics of the Bootleg
> To: email suppressed
> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 1:50 PM
> Dear James, Your post cuts to the chase. How much traffic
> income does UBU steer toward the artists it streams. Ubu
> has built a
> major reputation through link citations and search traffic
> that it is
> the first listing on Goggle for artists like Hollis
> Frampton, Ken
> Jacobs, Yvonne Rainer, George Kuchar, James Broughton,
> Ernie Gehr, et
> al. When opening UBU one is offered an immediate full
> viewing of
> their most well known works. Does that boost media artists
> through co-op rentals, or DVD purchases? Canyon Cinema
> thinks the
> matter is worth exploring.
> Conner's use of found footage and UBU's
> appropriation of an artist's
> complete output cannot be confused. Conner has operated
> for years in
> the sphere of public domain. One could argue he made the
> first, most
> important contribution to film history with "A
> Movie". That 50 year
> old piece has generated more spin-offs, one of the latest
> being Bill
> Maher's opening titles on his HBO show. We should
> celebrate "A
> Movie"s golden anniversary.
> Really loved your insights.
> Beverly O'Neill
> On Jun 11, 2008, at 8:12 AM, James Cole wrote:
> > The difference between found footage and what ubu is
> doing is pretty
> > clear, I think. One is recontextualizing work and
> re-presenting it in
> > creative ways. Ubu, on the other hand, shows the work
> in degraded
> > form without any regard for the maker. They're
> not trying to create
> > art (which is something that can, I think, fall under
> the umbrella of
> > fair use). They're just showing other
> people's art, with total
> > disregard for the people who made it and with how they
> present it. It
> > seems to me that there is a pretty clear divide from
> found footage and
> > what ubu does. I'm not sure what I can say,
> really, if we can't
> > distinguish between what Bruce Conner, Ken Jacobs,
> etc., etc. do, and
> > what Ubu is doing (with its self righteous hall of
> shame), then I
> > don't really know what to say. But, to me, it
> doesn't seem especially
> > tricky to distinguish between Bruce Conner and Ubu, or
> > Negativeland and The Pirate Bay. If you use a
> little bit of common
> > sense, you should be able to establish what is fair
> > Furthermore, this idea that "what matters is that
> people see the
> > work," thats very nice, FOR YOU. But if Ken
> Jacobs and Robert Beavers
> > and Nathanial Dorsky want their films to be seen in
> certain controlled
> > enviornments, then that is THIER right. If they did
> want to lock it
> > in a drawer, that would be their right, as well. I
> get the feeling
> > that some people would much rather their work never be
> seen than it be
> > seen in poor light.
> > Also, is it really so wrong for people to want to get
> paid for their
> > work? People throw so much money into making this
> stuff, and we don't
> > think they should be able to negotiate the terms for
> the showing of
> > their work? They should spend all of their money to
> make a film and
> > then get a job delivering pizzas to pay for it?
> There's a letter out
> > there somewhere from Frampton to the Moma regarding
> some of these
> > issues. There is an idea that artists should be
> greatful that anyone
> > wants to see their work, but to me that should be up
> to the artist.
> > -James
> > On 6/11/08, Jorge Amaro <email suppressed>
> >> Could Bruce Conner made A Movie having that in
> mind? Could dozens of
> >> found footage film makers have done anything at
> all? The concept of
> >> property is somehow confusing for me. The idea of
> nullify the found
> >> footage films I love so much over a concept of
> property is weird.
> >> And
> >> no one will think that a videotaped event from
> some museum or
> >> screening will substitute the film, and i think
> what matters is that
> >> people see the work, isnt it for that reason
> people make them in the
> >> first place? If they made it over an idea of
> property they could
> >> close
> >> it in drawer and throw away key, that alone is
> the only option if
> >> you
> >> dont want to see copies of your work.
> >> j.
> >> 2008/6/11 James Cole
> <email suppressed>:
> >>>> That's like saying a
> >>>> postcard of the Mona Lisa is the
> intellectual property of Leonardo.
> >>> Is that really such an absurd idea? I mean,
> it seems pretty clear
> >>> that, were Leonardo alive, it would be his
> property. Certainly you
> >>> can't be in favor of the postcard
> manufacturer being able to make
> >>> profits off of the Mona Lisa while Da Vinci
> has no say whatsoever.
> >>> If it wasn't ubuweb that was using it (an
> organization which is
> >>> ostensibly in favor of avant-garde film),
> would people really be so
> >>> allowing? If ubu can show a clip recorded off
> of a monitor, then
> >>> can
> >>> the US Army use the same clip in recruiting
> videos? Can
> >>> McDonalds use
> >>> it to sell burgers?
> >>> 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>.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
> <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.