From: Eli Horwatt (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jan 05 2010 - 07:31:40 PST
Yes, it does depend on what you're talking about.
The use of the term mashup in reference to all found footage work of
any kind is simply wrong. Obviously there is no litmus test, but I
would say this term is used to represent the work of amateur editors
on the Internet interested in narrative assemblage from various
mainstream sources usually for the purposes of détournement.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Stephen Morgan <email suppressed> wrote:
> It all depends on exactly what you're talking about, I suppose.
> In the first half of the 1980s, a bunch of young 'anti-artists' in the UK,
> some influenced by hip-hop turntablism, started appropriating 'found
> footage' in a practice which became known as 'Scratch Video'.
> Andy Lipman wrote an interesting piece entitled 'Scratch and Run' for City
> Limits in 1984, which can be found here:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Fred Camper <email suppressed> wrote:
>> I'd like to question the use of the term "mash-up."
>> I remember being startled a few years back by an article in "Wired"
>> magazine that referred to Arthur Lipsett's films as "mash-ups."
>> The term itself suggests its origin in pop music, and an informality, a
>> rapidity of construction perhaps, that feels, to me, thoroughly wrong for
>> Lipsett's films, or, say, Brakhage's "Murder Psalm." "Found footage films"
>> or "collage films" are already-existing terms that seem better.
>> Of course there may also be more recent videos for which the term
>> "mash-up" is appropriate, and of course I understand that some may disagree
>> with me and go on using the term for all such films.
>> Fred Camper
>> 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>.