From: Fred Davidson (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Mar 27 2009 - 09:06:16 PDT
Chuck Kleinhans did comment. He commented in the subject line.
He said... What did he say? He said, "that sneaky intentional fallacy".
I think the fusion column, CHRISTMAS ON EARTH:COCKS AND CUNTS
will fulfill the requirements of the extra column that you are asking
for. Would you rather have your vote be placed in that column?
Presently it is in the CHRISTMAS ON EARTH column.
On Mar 27, 2009, at 11:30 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote:
> Chuck snipped:
>> On Mar 27, 2009, at 12:39 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote:
>>> partaking in the intentional fallacy may be SOP for experimental
>>> film enthusiasts, but films always speak for themselves outside of
>>> their maker(s) intent.
>>> Jsck Smith did not intend Flaming Creatures to be shocking. he just
>>> wanted to celebrate glamor in his own way.
> I'm guessing Chuck posted this w/o comment as evidence I was
> engaging in the same intentional fallacy i decried. To clarify, I
> meant the opposite. We have a good idea what _Jack Smith's_ intent
> was since he voiced it rather passionately. However, the evidence of
> the text and its reception strongly indicate that it speaks things
> Smith did not intend, at least not consciously. FWIW, I don't think
> artists' intent should be banned from the discussion, just not
> fetishized as 'what the film REALYY means.' For example, I think
> appreciation of Jack Smith is greatly enhanced by being aware of
> what he wanted his work to do and be, and placing that up against
> all the other wild stuff crawling around in there.
> Fred D. wrote:
>> Yes I do need to see it David. Perhaps I do not have a legitimate
>> right to comment on it.
> Again to clarify, I wasn't trying to police the commentary. My line
> about preservation being more worthy than messing with the name came
> off too snooty. I'm sorry. I was glad to read in Andrew Lampert's
> post that the film has been preserved. I didn't actually take your
> apparently light-hearted campaign as a comment on the film itself,
> but as a comment on the continuing social stigmas about sexuality
> and an attempt to retrieve some good-natured sixties rebelliousness.
> Cool wit dat. Can we have another column in the tally for the
> acceptability of "Christmas on Earth, formerly Cocks and Cunts" as
> an alternate billing, if not actual title. [Here I'm thinking of the
> Stooges track: "Your Pretty Face Is Going To Hell (originally titled
> Hard To Beat)"]
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.