From: gregg biermann (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 20 2010 - 22:51:32 PDT
How you write, where that writing goes, how people read it, what happens
to it after it is read, and even what you write, will be radically
different depending on whether you write with a pencil, a computer or an
ice cream scoop. The fact that you are reading this in Paris and I am
writing it in New Jersey attests to that. So it is quite difficult to
separate the technology from the product that is created from the use of
that technology in any kind of thorough analysis. And if, as Fred
suggests, it is important to consider about how the energies of history
and the energies of art are intertwined, then we are forced to confront
the technology that we are using. There is no way to ignore the
transition that cinema is now going through -- away from mechanized
movement. This is one of the constraints of our time and this is
especially prescient when one considers the emphasis on novelty in
technique in the experimental tradition. Again Pip -- this doesn't mean
that you must necessarily abandon your Bolex or your bicycle in the
production of experimental cinema. It just means the artist needs to be
cognizant of what that decision entails -- aesthetically speaking. The
practical implications are more obvious.
Pip Chodorov wrote:
> I don't know - we still have pencils and paper, and they still serve
> us well to write. Many people use typewriters and many more computers.
> Is there no use for paper and pencil? Are they part of an earlier age?
> I know I'm overstating a simple point but I think it's a useful
> analogy. Mechanical technologies are still around and as much a part
> of the present. You still use a bicycle? An ice-cream scooper with a
> spring-action scoop ejector? My Bolex and my super-8 camera are on my
> table ready to use, like my scissors, my fork, my kettle. This is
> second nature, does not denote or connote the past in any way, and I
> think for many people this is the same. More important is what you
> write, rather than that it is written with a pencil, a typewriter or a
> computer. That's originality... No?
> At 13:48 -0400 20/07/10, gregg biermann wrote:
>> I'm not stating that there is no use for film in the present -- only
>> that mechanical technologies are part of an earlier age than digital
>> technologies. In that sense they are associated more with the past.
>> That fits within the discussion about originality -- no?
>> Pip Chodorov wrote:
>>> What technologies of the past?
>>> Photography and film are still technologies of the present (and
>>> cheaper than digital).
>>> Was someone discussing typesetting or daguerrotypes?
>>> -Pip Chodorov
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
FrameWorks mailing list