Re: RULES was Re: FramWorks, Obama, Satantango, politics, etc.

From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Sep 08 2008 - 13:15:24 PDT


On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Jonathan Walley <email suppressed> wrote:

> Cari (and everyone),
> The constitution and bill or rights protects us from the government. We're
> talking about the rules of this list, which is not a government institution
> (thank god). If "rules" sounds to "controlling," then maybe a better way to
> think about it is in terms of expectations people have about then purpose of
> this list, which was explicitly set forth by the people who created it. It
> seems reasonable to expect that the conversations on this list are going to
> be about experimental film and not other things, though of course there are
> always grey areas, as others have rightfully pointed out.

read what i wrote to fred and maybe you will get logic
and understand more of the way real life actually works
it is not compartmentalized in tinie little tight ass boxes organized to the

> You're right that if you don't like the posts on this list you can avoid
> reading them, or read them and then ignore (not respond to) them. But this
> list is a community of members with widely varying opinions, beliefs,
> backgrounds, etc., and the list benefits from people expressing themselves,
> INCLUDING about whether or not certain topics are appropriate for the list.
> There is a distinction between voicing an opinion and controlling/censoring
> someone, and you're conflating the two here. You can disagree with someone's
> position, but immediately inflating people's complaints about political
> content to the level of control, censorship, and oppression seems extreme,
> especially when nobody on this list can control what anyone else writes.

oh they try and
i am not conflating them
i just don't think it is productive for people to whine about crap
when they could obviously just meander down the road
and i hate when others are oppressive it sucks the life out of everyhting
AND it is boring

> Finally, I don't get the anti-academic sentiment. As an academic myself, I
> know there are some bad professors out there. I'm sorry if you've had bad
> experiences in academia, because as a teacher of both film studies and
> production I aim to create precisely the opposite. But to equate academics
> as a group with control, lack of inclusiveness, being boring, is unfair.
> There have been some artists who held beliefs I'm sure you wouldn't like
> (you mentioned the futurists in a recent post - they were fascists after
> all), but I wouldn't generalize about all artists from those few. There are
> plenty of academics on this list who keep things lively.

you don't get it - right
i see that
academic does not mean 'school'
how many times do i have to write that on this list???????



ac·a·dem·ic (ăk'ə-dĕm*'*ĭk) [image: pronunciation]

   1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a school, especially one of
   higher learning.
      1. Relating to studies that are liberal or classical rather than
      technical or vocational.
      2. Relating to scholarly performance: *a student's academic average.*
   3. Of or belonging to a scholarly organization.
   4. Scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world. See
   synonyms at pedantic <>.
   5. Based on formal education.
   6. Formalistic or conventional.
   7. Theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or intention.
   See synonyms at theoretical <>.
   8. Having no practical purpose or use.


   1. A member of an institution of higher learning.
   2. One who has an academic viewpoint or a scholarly background.


umn some words in the english language have a broader scope than just one
what i meant was number 6 oh and number 4 oh and click on the link to
'pedantic' it applies nicely
by the way i am somewhat a product of school - i have degrees and crap but i
also have my own very own self
and very own life - ya know what i mean?


> Jonathan
> Jonathan Walley
> Assistant Professor, Cinema Department
> Denison University
> Granville, Ohio 43023
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Cari Machet wrote:
> you can make a post about green sox if you want as far as i am concerned
>> there is a reason in the constitution of the united states
>> written oh in the 1700's
>> and amended to include the bill of rights later
>> was inclusive of freedom of speech
>> wonder why those crazy white guys would give a crap about that?
>> the ones in power now seem to understand just how crazy they were
>> believe it or not
>> (as there are way too many boring - academic - repetitively rehashing old
>> crap films in the supposed experimental film world)
>> experimental film is an inclusive genre of art/film
>> if you don't like the posts in a given subject use your civil rights to
>> not read them
>> control freakism is boring and lifeless
>> unfortunately some people are interested in such things
>> c
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:41 AM, James Cole <email suppressed>
>> wrote:
>>> "But surely 'rules' 'from above' are antithetical to experimental film."
>>> Can I make a post about the Red Sox, then? Dustin Pedroia is really
>>> swinging a big stick as of late.
>>> I guess I don't really see how there can be any debate about whether or
>>> not this is germane to the list. Does anyone here think Obama knows who
>>> Joyce Wieland is?
>>> I signed up for a list on the discussion of experimental film. In the
>>> last few months, I've gotten that thing about joining some social networking
>>> site, something asking me to send money to Nigeria, and now political
>>> propaganda. Does any of this really wall under the category of
>>> "subversive," Jack? I mean, hell, I wouldn't want to receive emails about
>>> the new Coen Brothers movie, and I certainly didn't give out my email so I
>>> could be subject to campaign material. Certainly I don't think any of the
>>> people who "broke" the rules should be kicked off the list or put in jail or
>>> anything (that would indeed be "absurd"); but a whole mess of people gave
>>> out their private email addresses so they could receive discussion about
>>> experimental film, not so they could get information about Democrats,
>>> Republicans, Lyndon Larouche, etc. It would be nice if people were
>>> respectful of that.
>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Jack Sargeant <email suppressed> wrote:
>>>> Rules?
>>>> If we are going to follow rules (absurd) then surely "subversive" would
>>>> cover at least some political statements.
>>>> But surely 'rules' 'from above' are antithetical to experimental film.
>>>> Jack
>>>> > There are supposed to be rules about this list -
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Frameworks is "an international forum on experimental film,
>>>> avant-garde
>>>> > film, film as art, film as film, or film as visual poetry; film's
>>>> > expressive qualities, aside from or in addition to its storytelling
>>>> > capacity. Any genre of experimental film, such as film diary, found
>>>> > footage, abstract, flicker, lyric, subversive, expanded, etc., can be
>>>> > discussed, as well as those films which fall into the cracks between
>>>> the
>>>> > genres, or those not covered by other lists.
>>>> >
>>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>> __________________________________________________________________ For
>>> info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>> --
>> cari machet
>> nyc 347-610-5199
>> AIM carismachet
>> Skype carimachet - 646-652-6434
>> __________________________________________________________________ For
>> info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

cari machet
nyc 347-610-5199
AIM carismachet
Skype carimachet - 646-652-6434