From: Anna Biller (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Oct 15 2010 - 21:55:42 PDT
This is great. Kudos to Lawrence Daressa and Mark Toscano for
explaining all of these points so clearly and carefully. There's no
substitute for experience.
On Oct 15, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Lawrence Daressa wrote:
>
> I'd like to add the perspective of a non-profit film distributor for
> the
> last 42 years (admittedly not of experimental work) in the hope it may
> have some relevance to the thread over Ubu. I warn readers in advance
> that this will be dry, technical and decidedly mundane. .
>
> I do not share David Tetzlaff's enthusiasm for the "Free!" market
> economics propounded by Wired Magazine entrepreneur and internet guru,
> Chris Anderson. There is, in reality, no consensus that making films
> available for free increases or decreases net sales or revenues, only
> inconclusive anecdotal reports indicative of both. Almost all
> generalizations about the internet, including Anderson's, are false
> because there is no one internet, but many "internets." Experimental
> filmmakers need to ask some questions about their internet before they
> take the leap into "free" distribution; their answers will necessarily
> not be the same.
>
> 1. First, how important is it for me to be paid for my work? Am I
> looking for income, exposure or both?
> 2. How will people learn about my film? There's no point posting a
> film
> on the web if nobody knows it's there. One of the most common but
> baseless assumptions about the web is that there is a significant
> correlation between accessibility and viewership.
> 3. Following from that, how many viewers will Ubu attract to my film
> which I wouldn't reach through other avenues? This doesn't need
> guesswork. What are the metrics (visitors, bounces, viewing time, etc)
> for Ubu titles like your own?
> 4. How likely is it that these viewers will want to pay $24.95 to
> own a
> DVD of my film? How many simply want to screen it one (or more)
> times or
> pirate it from Ubu? Here a degree of humility is called for. .
> 4. An interesting option: would they pay $2.99 to rent it from an
> internet content aggregator (eg i-Tunes or Amazon)?
> 5. How many schools and museums would purchase a DVD and/or streaming
> license for my film(s)? How much would they pay (up to $500.)?
> 6. How likely are they simply to embed a link to Ubu in students'
> on-line syllabi or buy a home video DVD for $24.95?
>
> Most films, experimental or otherwise, have no opportunity to develop
> visibility in the present content clutter of cyberspace and, as a
> consequence, no chance to generate significant income. In these cases,
> the choice is clear because there are no alternatives: put your work
> everywhere you can and give it away for free in the hope that someone
> will stumble across it (the fancy name for this is hyper-syndication.)
>
> For the small number of experimental makers who do have "name
> recognition" and generate significant income from screenings at
> colleges (live or classroom) and museums the picture is more murky..
> There is no question that free distribution results in significant
> seepage into and dilution of consumer and institutional markets. -
> more
> than a 50% loss. And it's perfectly legal. So, a filmmaker has to
> ask:
> am I willing to risk that the sales I may gain by free delivery will
> exceed the ones I definitely will lose as a result of it?
>
> There have, of course, always been viable alternatives to Ubu for
> promoting experimental film to its core constituency. Distributors,
> festivals, exhibition programs, journals on and offline have been
> around
> for years, though they are not available to most filmmakers again
> because of content glut. These organs are perfectly adequate for
> reaching the institutional market because, to a large extent, they
> determine that market.
>
> Many filmmakers use free sites as a deliberate part of an internet
> marketing strategy, essentially as "bait" to lure (or if you prefer
> attract or introduce) viewers to other paid (monetized) works. This
> can
> simply means posting one short title on You Tube in the hope that
> viewers will want to see more of your oeuvre. Another use of free
> content is for "preview" streaming during a limited window, for
> example,
> around high-visibility events like a festival or, now, embedded in an
> online journal reviews. 30 days is usually a long enough window.
> Again,
> the effect on sales pro and con is unclear.
>
> Ubu could actually play a constructive role in this regard, though the
> creator of its eponym would roll over in his pataphysical grave. Ubu
> could offer both free and monetized content (or links to it) from the
> same site, using open source, e-commerce functionality. Filmmakers
> could
> then decide for themselves if and when they wanted their work to be
> freely available.
>
> Now for the really boring part: a final comment on the much-vexed
> "intellectual property" debate. Copyright is enshrined in common law
> and
> the US Constitution as a way for intellectual workers to earn a living
> from their labor and hence continue to produce it. (In 1789, artists
> and authors weren't tenured professors - as most still aren't.)
> Copyright gives authors the right to determine who may make copies of
> their work and to receive a royalty from those sales. There is an
> exemption, the Fair Use Doctrine, which permits use of "limited
> portions" of a work to "comment on" or "quote" but not "copy," that is
> act as a substitute for that work. Fair Use allows for inclusion of
> copyrighted content only if that use is "transformative," that is
> could
> not be used to substitute for the original work.
>
> Certain Fair Use internet fundamentalists have tried to broaden this
> exemption to cover any screening, in whole or in part, of a
> copyrighted
> work in a non-commercial venue, eg. a classroom, an online course, a
> museum or Ubuweb, I suppose. They claim this would constitute a
> transformative use even if the film were made explicitly for
> educational
> or artistic viewing. I suspect this betrays a recrudescent "printist"
> bias which associates the moving image with crass commercial
> entertainment. One can hardly imagine an academic incorporating an
> entire novel in a critical study of that novel as a "fair use." In any
> case, this argument is widely considered to have little legal merit;
> it
> is being advanced simply as a budget-cutting expedient to make artists
> rather than students, faculty or taxpayers pay for educational
> materials. The assumption is filmmakers are so disorganized they won't
> be able to do anything about it; in this regard, as in so many others,
> they are mistaken.
>
> Larry Daressa
> California Newsreel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lawrence Daressa
> California Newsreel
> 500 Third Street, #505
> San Francisco, CA 94107
> phone: 415.284.7800 x302
> fax: 415.284.7801
> email suppressed
> www.newsreel.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email suppressed
> [mailto:email suppressed] On Behalf Of
> email suppressed
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:01 AM
> To: email suppressed
> Subject: FrameWorks Digest, Vol 5, Issue 29
>
> Send FrameWorks mailing list submissions to
> email suppressed
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> email suppressed
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> email suppressed
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of FrameWorks digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: UbuWeb...HACKED! (David Tetzlaff)
> 2. Re: UbuWeb...HACKED! (David Tetzlaff)
> 3. Re: UbuWeb...HACKED! (Shelly Silver)
> 4. Re: UbuWeb...HACKED! (Mark Toscano)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:09:10 +0000
> From: David Tetzlaff <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Message-ID: <email suppressed>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> I usually find Anna Biller's posts to list to be thoughtful and sharp
> whether I agree with them or not. But the msg. below makes me wonder
> if Matt Helme is spoofing Ms. Biller's email address:
>
>> If they really cared and
>> wanted to support experimental film they could buy an inexpensive
>> Brakhage DVD on Amazon and have it shipped to them internationally,
>> and then Marilyn Brakhage could make a dollar or two or fifty cents
>> which would be nice.
>
> Of course, 'they' do buy the DVDs. What is missing from the discussion
> of film-art-economics an analysis of how audiences for experimental
> work come to exist -- what has to occur in the life of an individual
> to make them want to see experimental films, rent experimental prints,
> buy experimental DVDs. How is an appreciation for this out-of-the-
> mainstream work acquired, and how does it grow and expand? Very few
> people are going to buy that 'inexpensive' Brakhage DVD unless they
> have some acquaintance with Brakhage. And how do people in 'the
> sticks' get such an acquaintance? By things like UbuWeb and Karagarga
> where they can try things out. _Pirates buy more content_ because
> they've had a path to explore their inquisitiveness within their
> financial means, develop the taste and appreciation for free that are
> the pre-conditions for making any kind of financial investment.
>
> Virtually every form of modern cultural production works this way --
> first one's free kid, then you pay when you want more and better. The
> clearest example being the relationship between radio airplay and
> recording sales in pop music, but it's true (if in somewhat diluted
> form) in other mediums as well.
>
>> If no one pays for anything and everyone insists on getting
>> everything for free,
>
> But that is not the case...
>
>> we will ONLY have the corporations and the work they produce,
>> because no one else will be able to afford to produce anything.
>
> Which brings up the question, 'how is anyone able to afford to produce
> anything NOW?' And the answer is NOT, 'because of the income generated
> by coop rentals and/or print/dvd sales.' If we ask 'what are the
> economics of being an experimental filmmaker?' we immediately confront
> the fact that the work itself has little direct market value due to
> the lack of auratic status inherent in it's mechanical
> reproducability. AFAIK, no one has ever made a living from the
> receipts of experimental films. The economic value of such filmmaking
> has always resided in the notoriety it brings to the maker, the kind
> of opportunities for other channels of income opened by having one's
> work circulated, noticed, appreciated. These include the ability to
> obtain grants and other subsidies, to obtain academic positions, and
> to increase the value of creative work the artist may do in more
> auratic forms. Matthew Barney is the master of the latter, but I'm
> sure Michael Snow's sculptures are worth more because he's Michael
> Snow.
>
> We may like this situation or not (I'd rather things worked
> differently myself) but that's how it is, has been, and is likely to
> be. Internet forms like UbuWeb don't change that basic equation.
>
> I too think it's nice if Marilyn gets some royalty payments, but
> she'll more in the long run the more people know who Stan was and what
> his work was like, which doesn't happen by magic. And since 'Cats
> Cradle' and 'Window Water...' are on the DVD I wonder if Jane Brakhage
> or Carolee Schneemann are getting a cut, and if not, where's the moral
> economy in that?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:57:56 +0000
> From: David Tetzlaff <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Message-ID: <email suppressed>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Anna Biller wrote:
>
>> The internet creates a sense of flattened relativism in which
>> everything loses its context and sense of scale and history.
>
> As an example she cites:
>
>> the way [people] use YouTube and Facebook to select works and share
>> them, almost as if their selection of the work is the same as making
>> the work.
>
> This is the sort of critique of postmodern culture that comes out of
> Fred Jameson's 'Culture of Late Capitalism' essay, or Baudrillard's
> 'Ecstacy of Communication.' I think this does occur, and I do find it
> worrisome. I have seen video blogs consisting of nothing but
> selections of other clips from around the web that I think qualify as
> works of art because of the genuine creativity, amount of work, and
> the effective aesthetic results of the choices made in pulling clips
> together and establishing connections/collisions between them. But
> such examples are rare and I do see a lot of the Jamesonian flattening
> Anna notes.
>
> But...
>
> This is not what people mean when they say 'viewing a work is as
> creative as making one.' First of all, that's phrased as hyperbole.
> The 'is' is too definitive and universal, and 'as creative as'
> indicates a false equality. It would be more accurate to say 'Viewing
> is usually an act that involves a significant exercise of creativity
> on the part of the viewer.' This is basically the 'active audience'
> thesis that drives Cultural Studies. My own conclusion is that this
> sort of active engagement, the affectless pomo reflecting screen, and
> a more Frankfurt School ideological transmission all occur in our
> culture side by side.
>
> The active audience thesis stems from basic principles of semiotics.
> The work of art is an object, with elements that act as symbols. These
> symbols have no intrinsic meaning. They must be assembled, interpreted
> and engaged by whoever perceives them. There is a lot of wiggle-room
> in this process. So the mute object only becomes a meaningful work of
> art once someone 'reads' it, and invests meaning into it, which is
> inevitably a sort of indirect dialogic process. Academic studies like
> Henry Jenkins' 'Textual Poachers' may overstate the case, but there's
> too much evidence for the basic thesis to dismiss it entirely.
>
> And certainly, experimental film is a form that engenders active
> engagements. I'd guess for most folks on this list, early encounters
> with experimental work yielded a good share of 'WTF?' reactions,
> followed by struggles to parse the text, leading to a variety of
> interpretations rooted in part in each viewer's unique life
> experiences.
>
> Perhaps some UbuWeb users wind up engaging the clips there in the
> worst sort of YouTube reflecting-screen pomo fascination. But that's
> hardly Ubu's fault. Ubu has clearly been a portal by which a
> significant number of people who would not otherwise been exposed to
> avant garde work have found their way to some knowledge/interest/
> appreciation. As Jeanne Liotta noted, in the long run that benefits
> our 'community' as a whole, and we all can benefit individually from
> the health in that community.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:27:29 -0400
> From: Shelly Silver <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Message-ID: <email suppressed>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> 'there is no such thing as intellectual property'
> godard
>
> alas, his films are distributed by the most stingy of distributors
> (less to do with his choice but his financing at the time)
>
> i think artists have far more to lose from copyright laws and the like
> then to gain. we're just brainwashed to not see it so (akin to the
> poor identifying with the rich, with the logic, 'one day when i am
> rich...')
>
> free culture:
> http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/
>
> best,
> shelly
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2010, at 6:09 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote:
>
>> I usually find Anna Biller's posts to list to be thoughtful and sharp
>> whether I agree with them or not. But the msg. below makes me wonder
>> if Matt Helme is spoofing Ms. Biller's email address:
>>
>>> If they really cared and
>>> wanted to support experimental film they could buy an inexpensive
>>> Brakhage DVD on Amazon and have it shipped to them internationally,
>>> and then Marilyn Brakhage could make a dollar or two or fifty cents
>>> which would be nice.
>>
>> Of course, 'they' do buy the DVDs. What is missing from the
>> discussion
>> of film-art-economics an analysis of how audiences for experimental
>> work come to exist -- what has to occur in the life of an individual
>> to make them want to see experimental films, rent experimental
>> prints,
>> buy experimental DVDs. How is an appreciation for this out-of-the-
>> mainstream work acquired, and how does it grow and expand? Very few
>> people are going to buy that 'inexpensive' Brakhage DVD unless they
>> have some acquaintance with Brakhage. And how do people in 'the
>> sticks' get such an acquaintance? By things like UbuWeb and Karagarga
>> where they can try things out. _Pirates buy more content_ because
>> they've had a path to explore their inquisitiveness within their
>> financial means, develop the taste and appreciation for free that are
>> the pre-conditions for making any kind of financial investment.
>>
>> Virtually every form of modern cultural production works this way --
>> first one's free kid, then you pay when you want more and better. The
>> clearest example being the relationship between radio airplay and
>> recording sales in pop music, but it's true (if in somewhat diluted
>> form) in other mediums as well.
>>
>>> If no one pays for anything and everyone insists on getting
>>> everything for free,
>>
>> But that is not the case...
>>
>>> we will ONLY have the corporations and the work they produce,
>>> because no one else will be able to afford to produce anything.
>>
>> Which brings up the question, 'how is anyone able to afford to
>> produce
>> anything NOW?' And the answer is NOT, 'because of the income
>> generated
>> by coop rentals and/or print/dvd sales.' If we ask 'what are the
>> economics of being an experimental filmmaker?' we immediately
>> confront
>> the fact that the work itself has little direct market value due to
>> the lack of auratic status inherent in it's mechanical
>> reproducability. AFAIK, no one has ever made a living from the
>> receipts of experimental films. The economic value of such filmmaking
>> has always resided in the notoriety it brings to the maker, the kind
>> of opportunities for other channels of income opened by having one's
>> work circulated, noticed, appreciated. These include the ability to
>> obtain grants and other subsidies, to obtain academic positions, and
>> to increase the value of creative work the artist may do in more
>> auratic forms. Matthew Barney is the master of the latter, but I'm
>> sure Michael Snow's sculptures are worth more because he's Michael
>> Snow.
>>
>> We may like this situation or not (I'd rather things worked
>> differently myself) but that's how it is, has been, and is likely to
>> be. Internet forms like UbuWeb don't change that basic equation.
>>
>> I too think it's nice if Marilyn gets some royalty payments, but
>> she'll more in the long run the more people know who Stan was and
>> what
>> his work was like, which doesn't happen by magic. And since 'Cats
>> Cradle' and 'Window Water...' are on the DVD I wonder if Jane
>> Brakhage
>> or Carolee Schneemann are getting a cut, and if not, where's the
>> moral
>> economy in that?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Toscano <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Message-ID: <email suppressed>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> I agree with Steve here, but the big difference is that VDB is working
> with the artists directly, and has their permission (and probably even
> encouragement) to post those clips. It's part of VDB's promotion of
> the
> work, and is a great way to get a sense of something in order to
> decide
> whether or not to show it. Lux and Light Cone do the same.
>
> I'm all for the access aspect of ubu in a way, but the artists are
> generally not being given a choice of how their work is to be
> represented. It's funny that some people here seem to think that the
> artists are just being obstructionist about the ubu thing. I think a
> LOT of artists would happily provide work to them to host (perhaps
> with
> reasonable restrictions or stipulations), but aside from a few
> examples
> I know of (Andy Lampert, Pete Rose, etc.), ubu is not seeking that
> dialogue with the artists. (And in Pete's case, he provided the work
> himself.) Again, my favorite example of abomination here is David
> Rimmer's Surfacing on the Thames, which is a ludicrously unwatchable
> video accompanied by a borrowed text explaining how subtle and
> beautiful
> the film is.
>
> And I agree that those who have been touched by a work do have certain
> rights "to" it, but they're not equal to the artist's rights. They're
> not even in the same broad category. When someone is the sole
> author of
> a film, why don't they have control over whether they want to change
> or
> destroy it? We may not like it as viewers/historians/whatever, but
> the
> artist may hate it for the work to continue to exist. Three of Bob
> Nelson's early films are unrecoverable because he destroyed them.
> Fragments remain. He's mildly regretful about one, maybe two of them,
> but ultimately it's not a big deal to him. Thom Andersen wanted to
> show
> one of them (Superspread) in a Cal Arts class once, and I had to tell
> him Nelson destroyed it. He was really bummed ("wow.... i really
> liked
> that movie and it had a big impact on me"). I told Nelson what he
> said,
> and he said, "huh. well, maybe I shouldn't have destroyed it."
>
> Over many years, Stanley Kubrick did everything he could to accumulate
> and destroy all surviving prints of his first feature, Fear and
> Desire.
> Of course people were still eager to see it, if not more so because of
> this action. When a print turned up unexpectedly at George Eastman
> House in the '90s or so, they preserved it and planned a NYC
> screening.
> (Note - Kubrick did not own the rights to it, but I'm talking more
> about
> artist's rights here.) Kubrick got in touch with them and very
> emphatically tried to get them to not show it. If memory serves, they
> didn't, and they made a specific arrangement with Kubrick regarding
> how/when they would show the film (at least while he was still alive -
> in-house at GEH only, to researchers and in public screenings at their
> theater only). Some time after Kubrick died, they started loaning it
> outside GEH.
>
> I'm imagining a similar scenario with ubu - Ken Jacobs tells them to
> stop hosting his files, they counter-offer something, perhaps that
> they'll stream them only, no downloads, Ken perhaps agrees, everyone's
> in accordance (enough to keep going, anyway).
>
> I don't think the artist has final say, but only from a practical
> standpoint more than a moral one. Once something is out there, people
> WILL bootleg it. I can tell without doubt that the Awful Backlash
> video
> on ubu is clearly lifted from a digibeta that I made at a lab to
> provide
> the film to German TV for them to use an excerpt for a short piece on
> Bob Nelson a few years ago. And the text accompanying it is one
> that I
> used AS A JOKE for the Oberhausen program in 2006. Which leads to my
> main beef with ubu's film section - the lazy "curating".
>
> I've been following their site pretty much since it began, way before
> the film/video section existed. They've always had a fairly strong
> curatorial identity and I know they worked with artists on some amount
> of their content. But when the film section came along, it was
> clearly
> just shit trolled on the internet and dumped in a pile for users to
> sift
> through, with no regard to quality, presentation, or curatorial
> vision.
> Seems to me that everything about that section of the site is just
> lazy
> and passive. Talk about viewer's/curator's rights - curating comes
> with
> certain responsibilities if you're going to claim those rights.
>
> Bottom line - I think it would at least be respectful of ubu to
> attempt
> to reach filmmakers about hosting their work, because I do think
> they'd
> get more yes than no. Their 'hall of shame' thing was petty, stupid,
> and uninformed - good they dumped it a while back. If an artist
> doesn't
> want their stuff up on ubu, then ubu should take it down. Why is
> that a
> big deal? It doesn't mean that film is suddenly completely removed
> from
> public view. It just means it's no longer being made available
> without
> the artist's permission on a site at questionable quality, and if the
> artist isn't comfortable with that, they shouldn't be vilified for it.
>
> And note that none of what I talked about here had to do with
> financial
> gain.
>
> Mark Toscano
>
>
> --- On Fri, 10/15/10, Steve Polta <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> From: Steve Polta <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
> To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <email suppressed
> >
> Date: Friday, October 15, 2010, 5:43 AM
>
> It is my understanding that the advent of exp. film on DVD (e.g.
> Brakhage) has negatively impacted the film co-ops' circulation of
> work,
> presumably due to schools' use of DVD in the classroom as opposed to
> renting films. This not only diminishes the income paid to
> filmmakers by
> co-ops but also impacts the viability of the co-ops.
>
> Speaking as a curator, I can say that online access to preview
> copies of
> artists' work (even in excerpt/sample form) greatly facilitates the
> curatorial process and has definitely led to me including new-to-me
> work/artists in programs I have curated for San Francisco
> Cinematheque.
> (For the record, these rentals have always been acquired from
> artists or
> distributors and have always been paid.)
>
> Regarding Beverly O'Neill's reference to the distribution co-ops'
> participation in this process, it's notable that Video Data Bank
> (VDB) *does* provide public access to samples of artists' work. Again,
> speaking as a curator, I can say that this service has led directly to
> rentals and exhibition. Providing this access would be a wonderful
> service a distributor could provide its artists. I know it's easier
> said
> than done. I would encourage any artists in a position to effect a
> positive change in this area to organize and encourage this service
> from
> their distributors.
>
> Steve Polta
>
> --- On Thu, 10/14/10, Beverly O'Neill <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> From: Beverly O'Neill <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
> To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <email suppressed
> >
> Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 9:41 PM
>
> Dear Frameworkers, ?UBU always sparks
> livelihood anxieties in me, not for my generation which has been
> around
> for 45 years of filmmaking, but for those who are beginning to make
> work
> or struggling with mid-career anxieties. ?The scarcity of venues,
> grants, awards, faculty positions, -- well, everyone here knows what
> goes on that list. ?UBU plays a very minor role, yeah/nay, in that
> equation. ?Just trying to think of ways to rekindle some of the spirit
> we all felt when Canyon and Anthology began. ? ?It would be
> wonderful if
> we could (Frameworkers, co-ops, Anthology whatever) if we could revive
> the Maya Deren lifetime achievement award and present it annually to
> several media makers. ?Suppose the co-op, I'm thinking of Canyon
> because
> I know them, ?set up a way to digitize work and took a % ?from the
> sales
> of DVDs. ?Could we broaden our focus and support for emerging
> exhibition
> groups by watching previews on-line (via Youtube/whatever) of new
> pieces, and offer critical feedback. ? ?The diversity of experiences
> and knowledge represented on this list has the capacity to imagine and
> realize some viable options that would enrich the culture younger
> artists work in. ?Frameworks serves an invaluable role in this new
> era.
> ?Using new tools what else can we do.?All props to this list.Beverly
> O'
> ??
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
> End of FrameWorks Digest, Vol 5, Issue 29
> *****************************************
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks