From: JEFFREY PAULL (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Apr 28 2009 - 05:07:20 PDT
Greetings, Joost -
Your first remark,
"- the more I think about it, the more I have to conclude that typical hollywood movies are the most abstract movies I know:
they don't seem to refer to anything real at all."
Is a gem.
Exactly so. The makers abstract a 100 min. schematic of our cultural responses and hang 100 minutes of emotional ornaments on it.
(I hope I'm not mixing my metaphors here.)
Of course this is called a "convention".
JP
On Mon 27/04/09 21:22 , Joost Rekveld email suppressed sent:
> Hi Rob,
> three remarks:
>
> - the word 'abstract' comes from 'abstrahere', something like
> 'pulling off', so it seems to refer to distilling some kind of essence
> of what is supposed to be reality. I am not sure that describes how
> most 'abstract filmmakers' see themselves.
> - if you show a Fischinger film and you say 'hey, that's an abstract
> film' or 'wow, that's a visual music film', then suddenly both terms
> are very clear and unproblematic; the only problem is to explain what
> 'visual music' or 'abstract film' is to somebody who does not already
> know what you are talking about...
> whatever.my 2c
> Joost.
>
> On 28 Apr, 2009, at 12:42 AM, Rob Gawthrop wrote:
> What’s wrong with abstract?
> -------------------------------------------
> Joost
> Rekveld----------- http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld [1]
> -------------------------------------------
> "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
> practice, there is."
> (Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut)
> -------------------------------------------
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.