Re: Ephermal filmworks? History?

From: Tony Conrad (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Mar 04 2009 - 20:56:08 PST

On Wed 03/04/09 1:51 PM , "email suppressed

> As for digital art about digital art, yep it's mostly awful, and
> futlie. I've seen a few that offer no insights additional to what
> experimental film makers have already made (in terms of the moving
> image). Still, every medium goes through that, and relatively
> speaking digital art is still very young. I'm a digital artist, and
> to me the medium itself has never been the message of a work. There
> is nothing wrong with experimental work that tests the medium
> however, that can too often be interpreted as digital art about
> digital art when it should be more correctly seen as experimental
> practice that could lead onto something else. Personally, I keep my
> experiments in that regard to myself though, to me they aren't works
> in their own right.
> Anyway, all the crap is an acceptable cost in my opinion when it's
> compared to the benefits of the medium. A lot of it is the result of
> what happens when people with no history of cinematic art,
> experimental film or video make work, you're going to get a lot of
> wheel reinvention. Its pointless to rail against it all though
> really.

ALL art is CRAP. IF you want to like ANY of it, adjust; find a way.
Railing against it is one way.
If you don't want to like it, that may be because you can't.


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