From: Bernard Roddy (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jul 16 2009 - 19:27:56 PDT
Among the things said about the engaged work is that it didn't satisfy standards of "artistic excellence." But it went without saying that the formally contrived work does. That is, nobody even asked about the standards then. After a video was criticized in this manner and then another came up that demonstrated a greater degree of craftsmanship in its editing and camera work, the latter fared no better. In other words, it was not a question of raising the aesthetic standards of engaged work. Such work was not taken seriously strictly because there was little perceived value in its politics, which come immediately to the forefront once the technique and presentation was recognized NOT to be the primary interest. In addition, on reflection, I feel it hardly mattered what was said in discussion, as long as the right votes were entered. I would launch into a more general discussion of issues only to see everyone look around and ask whether that was a
yes or a no. Who wants to hold up the works under such circumstances? And it's not as if everyone is looking to engage recent social theory. It would be so much more constructive just to go around the room and talk about what's at stake in our understanding of film, video, and media. Why do we bother?
--- On Thu, 7/16/09, Chuck Kleinhans <email suppressed> wrote:
> From: Chuck Kleinhans <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: Panel Report
> To: email suppressed
> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2009, 4:22 PM
> On Jul 16, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Bernard
> Roddy wrote:
> > Here's an Arts Council Panel Report, for your
> I think this is very useful to Frameworkers who have never
> been on a panel but do or plan to submit something to one.
> In my experience, I actually prefer a system in which
> judges get a fixed set of "points" which they can use to bid
> on selections. Thus if someone really strongly
> supports an entry which the other panelists see little or no
> merit in, there's still a chance to bid an entry into a
> final award. I think this allows for aesthetic or
> cultural variety to come through rather than seeking a
> lowest common denominator that all the panelists can agree
> on. (Actually I came up with this method during the
> divorce of my first marriage for dividing up the books and
> records--really the only meaningful possessions we had,
> being grad students.)
> Hope the meals were good!
> CHUCK KLEINHANS
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.