From: Jim Carlile (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jan 20 2010 - 16:49:16 PST
In a message dated 1/20/2010 2:42:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
email suppressed writes:
It's strange to me, as Mark Toscano notes below, that you're
> looking for examples where the constraint of film technology is
> seen as a burden without looking at the reverse, where the
> constraint is actually productive. That resistance in the material
> is one of the main reasons I've been so obstinate about working
> with (and presenting) celluloid-based work. It's like Oulipo, but
> without all the self-imposed obstacles--the constraint is built
> into the materials. For me, ease is the enemy, and whenever I
> start to feel like I'm getting too good at something, I have to
> introduce an element that helps me mess up again. I imagine there
> are LOTS of experimental filmmakers who feel the same way.
Are people actually claiming that film creates constraints that are
limiting, and therefore inadequate?
That would be like claiming that the sonnet form is limiting and thus a
real drag, or that the physical frame of an oil painting is unfortunate and
should be transcended.
All art is artifice and inherently circumscribed. I guess all these 3-D
films lately have confused people. But I'd also figure that anyone who calls
these physical limitations impediments don't read too many sonnets or paint
too many paintings. So their opinion doesn't really count.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.