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

From: Jack Sargeant (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Sep 08 2008 - 06:22:33 PDT

I don't think thats what I was saying in any post, I merely pointed
out that art could be political. I think I even suggested a simple
uncritical pro-Obama stance was a little staid. I didn't ever say I
wanted to bombarded with emails about politics, and you know what, I
haven't been.

In some feeling of optimism I was hoping that politics + experimental
film = No President by Jack Smith or The Bogus Man by Nick Zedd.

I have no problems if you post about the Red Sox, but given this is
an experimental film list any debate may be limited, but if you post
on, say the funding of art by the NEA in relation to political debate
then maybe it will generate a lively exchange of ideas (and yes, I am
aware that this is an American example).

I'm not sure being respectful is a point of debate, if we followed
the 'rules' and your argument we would be being disrespectful if we
posted about video art or documentary film. So - if we obey the
'rules' - that's Derek Jarman's Blue out of the picture.

Here's the thing, Frameworks is a living entity, it doesn't belong to
anybody, it changes and develops, reflecting the moods and whims of
the people posting... kind of like experimental film, it is personal
and not to everybody's taste. That is what makes it, at least
sometimes, mean something.


On 8 Sep 2008, at 22:41, James Cole 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>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.