Re: [Frameworks] weird!

From: Adam Hyman (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jun 06 2010 - 09:36:56 PDT

My guess is that it is easy to send to the whole list; it requires conscious
effort to send to only one person (saving that personıs email, etc), so Iım
thinking he intended it just for you, and you should have checked with him
before forwarding to the whole list.

That said, it is a useful contribution from Fred. There are a group of
younger filmmakers, underseen, underappreciated. At Filmforum we get full
houses for ³old masters² and sparse crowds for people currently making great
new work (if they arenıt from Los Angeles) - not many people (at least here
in Los Angeles) are willing to check out new work by people they havenıt
heard of. Celebrity culture of the experimental film world? Which leads to
lack of reviews, and the impossibility of consensus of ³new masters.²
Whether such a distinction is real ­ well, probably not - but more
well-known figures are important for attendance at screenings, at least from
a programmers view. Thus a catch-22.

Too many still think the ³avant-garde² was something that only lived in the
1960s and 1970s.

Best regards,

Adam Hyman
Los Angeles Filmforum

On 6/6/10 9:06 AM, "jason livingston" <email suppressed> wrote:

> Fred
> I think you may have meant for this to be sent to the whole list, and not to
> me.
> I'm not going to get into a big thing over this because it's actually pretty
> clear that I wasn't making an 'argument' at all but rather an observation, and
> a fairly loose one at that.
> For the record, I make an attempt to consider both aesthetic and political
> 'arguments' quite seriously. They're both complex matters, neither one easy.
> Jason
> Ithaca, NY
>> > Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:33:59 -0500
>> > From: email suppressed
>> > To: email suppressed
>> > Subject: Re: [Frameworks] weird!
>> >
>> > Quoting jason livingston <email suppressed>:
>> >
>>> > > ....And please don't get me wrong here - because I don't want to
>>> > > start a flame-out nor encourage a rants-and-raves style gripe
>>> > > session - but the list does strike me as curiously heavy on the
>>> > > elders and vets....
>> >
>> > What I really dislike about arguments like this one is that they are
>> > almost always political rather than aesthetic. Maybe that's because
>> > political arguments are easier to make, but to me such arguments
>> > degrade everything I care about in cinema. An argument like "too many
>> > oldsters" or "too many youngsters" or "not enough Japanese" tells me
>> > nothing, unless there is an obvious and extreme bias which of course
>> > should be noted, but which also seems to not be the case here. An
>> > argument such as "there's a group of younger filmmakers whose films
>> > are organized differently than earlier work, and whose work I love for
>> > these very different reasons, but which seems under-appreciated by
>> > many critics perhaps because of the difference," now that would be
>> > interesting, but that sort of thing is almost never heard. That the
>> > arguments to make for art should be ones of aesthetic merit seems
>> > tautological to me.
>> >
>> > For the record, I was one of the 46, and the final list is quite
>> > different from what I submitted. That's the other problem with
>> > "averaging" lists. In the old days of the "Village Voice," Andrew
>> > Sarris would take a top ten poll of readers, but then he would also
>> > list every film mentioned; thus did a few obscure Brakhage films make
>> > it from my top ten into his column.
>> >
>> > Fred Camper
>> > Chicago
>> >
>> >
> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
> inbox. See how.
> <
> :en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed

FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed