From: Bernard Roddy (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jul 21 2010 - 08:50:41 PDT
Funny how interest in a medium becomes more intense when there's interference
from artists using newer technologies, then softens under the constrictive
weight of a discourse that would relegate it to the past.
From: Pip Chodorov <email suppressed>
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 12:58:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Experimental / Genre
Re: [Frameworks] Experimental / Genre
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
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?
FrameWorks mailing list