REGARDING TATZLAFF & CAPPER; Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:20:30 0500 From:
Beth Capper <capper.beth_at_gmail.com>
& Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:01 PM,From David Tetzlaff <djtet53_at_gmail.com>
Beth, I agree, with your comment: ³It came off as admonishing....²
Its just so impossible to even try to communicate--Da Nile isnıt just a
river in EGYPT, and such folks canıt canıt see their see their own S8H#I0*T
but they sure like to spread it around....
And Beth, even if youıre not a country club member, you are a lady with a
brain and great communication skills---a rare thing in this world--thank you
----I appreciate it!
RE the comment: ²That sounds like advice I'd give to someone else, though
hypocritically I guess, since that's a little too country-club polite for
me. But, point
taken nevertheless.²
Obviously anyone who use the phrase ³country club² is continuing to slur
women---the usage of ³anything that refers to a woman who has more money/
connections, etc is a common slur that nowadays we hear quite often, easy to
peep out if you have a brain...²
AND RE the other comment: ³ whoops typo. I meant to say: "So I did not tell
people to chill out because they had expressed an opinion, but because they
they had blurted an
intemperate half-baked opinion."
What the hell- it seems like EVERYTIME he opens his mouth he switches feet,
his unconscious side is no longer a secret to those that keep up with
reviewing their own self...
Sorry if you others donıt see this as relating to ³FILM/VIDEO² it relates to
a BIGGER picture that, I suppose, most who read this think is
unimportant....
From: <frameworks-request_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Reply-To: <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:01:16 -0500
To: <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Subject: FrameWorks Digest, Vol 15, Issue 39
Send FrameWorks mailing list submissions to
frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
frameworks-request_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
frameworks-owner_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of FrameWorks digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Film and video (Beth Capper)
2. Re: Film and video (David Tetzlaff)
3. Re: Film and video (David Tetzlaff)
4. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (tina wasserman)
5. eco-friendly developing with organic coffee (Pip Chodorov)
6. Re: eco-friendly developing with organic coffee (David Kidman)
7. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (tina wasserman)
8. Analog and digital [was: Quo Vadis Celluloid?] (Fred Camper)
9. Re: Analog and digital [was: Quo Vadis Celluloid?]
(tina wasserman)
10. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (David Tetzlaff)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:20:30 -0500
From: Beth Capper <capper.beth_at_gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Film and video
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Message-ID:
<CALCj9mE-L9r73bJiDebgJf9WTTRwxMEawcX=H-si2=Vtbx+8Yw_at_mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
It came off as admonishing. It has the ring of "women, know your limits!"
You kinda have to "laugh out loud" at such things.
Women are breaking down the door and have been for a long time. They are
also creating their own spaces. Maybe where they don't get told to chill out
for having an opinion. This is kinda disconnected from whether I agree or
disagree about the initial comment about Jud's remarks. And, both men and
women have a role to play in changing the environment of a scene, a listserv
or whatever else.
Solution: you could have said, in a bit less of a sarcastic way, I'm not
sure I think Jud intended to create an exhaustive list.. he was just bashing
out some names. Or something to that effect.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:01 PM, David Tetzlaff <djtet53_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Beth Capper <capper.beth_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Chill, ladies? LOL, for real?
>>
>
> "I just did it for the Lulz!"
>
> Yeah, for real.
>
> What term would you have preferred? "Chill, peeps!"?
>
> Honestly, I didn't think 'ladies' was offensive, as I think of the pairing
> 'ladies and gentlemen' and I don't think of 'gentlemen' as disrespectful.
> Perhaps it comes off a bit sarcastic, using a more formal term in an
> informal setting, but again I was just tapping out a quick reply and not
> laboring over my words. I am, of course, totally aware of the fact that I
> have written Frameworks posts that caused other members of the list to tell
> me to chill, so I am not presenting myself as any sort of authority or
> master-of-the-chill or anything. I just think the responses to Yalkut were
> off-point.
>
> Seriously, if anybody has (non-facetious and non-snarky) suggestions for
> better terminology to apply, let me know. If its a problem, I'd appreciate
> help finding a solution.
>
> Nevertheless, my reaction to the students who stay away from the list
> because it's a 'boys club' is to call 'bullshit.' Get some confidence in
> yourself as a person and speak your piece because no one is going to do it
> for you. Frameworks is what its members make it, and I for one would welcome
> discussions of women in experimental film, or gender issues in experimental
> work, or any such stuff. Let's chat about (the fabulous) Laura Mulvey:
> 'Riddles of the Sphinx' and 'AMY!' How do you think Maya Deren or Carolee
> Schneeman or Abigail Child (just to name 3 of a much longer list) would
> react to that 'boys club' line? I'm thinking they'd say, 'That's right. It
> is a boys club, which is why YOU have to break down the door."
>
> Or simply direct them to the current exchange between Fred Camper and Anna
> Biller. I might disagree with Anna, but this is supposed to be a
> _discussion_ list, and she does not shy away from dialog and argument,,
> taking time to write out serious posts, standing her ground and deferring to
> no one. She's the Buffy of Frameworks ;-) ! I mean, if your response to
> loud-talking guys is to shy away into the corner, you're just doing
> patriarchy's job, having absorbed the disciplinary episteme or whatever
> Foucault would say (I'd reference Irigaray if I understood anything she's
> said, which I don't...) Okay, Kathleen Hanna I do understand, so show those
> kids some Sadie Benning pieces and Le Tigre videos and bade them kick some
> ass.
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/201108
26/53835239/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 03:08:41 -0400
From: David Tetzlaff <djtet53_at_gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Film and video
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Message-ID:
<CAKL9Z92c2axRnNXB5D3UKis0oc=FqSxRvj8nO8sbyt1KYNeCiQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Well, I intended no sarcasm, but that doesn't mean much, since it's very
hard to pick up tone from email, and I do tend to shift in and out of
sarcasm, which works OK in speech where there are ques, but not so much in
text. So my bad for not being clear. That's the thing about email though: we
all tend to write these things off rather quickly, without revision or
second thought, and that's just dangerous in text, where the reader will
make all kinds of assumptions filling in the blanks, reading between the
lines.
I did intend to be admonishing, but not at all in a way connected to gender,
and not in an overly serious way, which is why I used the slang 'chill.' I
am absolutely in favor of all people expressing an opinion, especially
people who bear identities that have led to marginalization. That said, I
have no intention of giving anyone a necessary pass on the expression of
opinions that strike me as questionable. So I did not tell people to chill
out because they had expressed an intemperate half-baked opinion.
I was a teacher in the 'creative arts' for well over 30 years, and one of
the frames of reference i had to adopt was a separation between an
individuals identity and their work output. Something you write or a work
you make is not _you_, it's just what you did yesterday, and if it has
'issues' it doesn't mean YOU are bad or stupid or hopeless. On the contrary,
YOU are full of potential that can grow when we talk about your work in a
context of constructive critique. If you don't adopt this kind of
perspective as a teacher, you go insane, getting wrapped up in student's ego
involvement in their stuff - which even they will look back on in a year or
so and wonder "Why was I so sensitive about THAT piece of mush," at which
point you flip and go 'hey, it wasn't that bad, and you really learned
something..." The thing is, I now kind of look at everything this way, which
most people are NOT used to, and consider any critique of whatever they say
or make as a critique of them as a person (or in this case as a whole
demographic) which is not at all what I'm thinking. I'm only focused on that
one thing, making no judgement about its typicality or larger significance
or whatever.
I completey agree that both men and women have a role to play in changing
the environment of a scene, a listserv or whatever else. We might disagree
about how best to do that, which might reflect other political divisions,
having to do with class, region, culture, subculture, etc. or just personal
taste. But I'd like to do what I can to open some new dialogs on the list.
Just to be clear, in saying I didn't much care for the Reeves piece on
video, I meant only to question the choice of that particular video
technology for that particular piece. Overall I have a high opinion of
Reeves work, and I used to show 'Chronic' in class.
>
> Solution: you could have said, in a bit less of a sarcastic way, I'm not
> sure I think Jud intended to create an exhaustive list.. he was just bashing
> out some names. Or something to that effect.
>
That sounds like advice I'd give to someone else, though hypocritically I
guess, since that's a little too country-club polite for me. But, point
taken nevertheless.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/201108
26/f978f463/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 03:11:38 -0400
From: David Tetzlaff <djtet53_at_gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Film and video
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Message-ID:
<CAKL9Z91S+57BcXdaiJkJfw5Ey=0n1kYvhfqXDDwxcT-5KS+urg_at_mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
whoops typo. I meant to say: "So I did not tell people to chill out because
they had expressed an opinion, but becuase they they had blurted an
intemperate half-baked opinion."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/201108
26/c339579e/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:50:02 -0400
From: tina wasserman <twasserman_at_verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Message-ID: <A59C2074-35B0-4BD0-9584-63175EC63321_at_verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Point taken. Thanks for clearing this up for me. I think Fred is right too
that celluloid film and analog video got grouped together as use of digital
video was on the rise. I do think it's important to keep a separate
category for celluloid film--whatever you call it, 'analog' film, celluloid,
emulsion-based film, photo-chemical film, etc--rather than create only two
groups: 'analog' vs. 'digital.' In that case the unique qualities of
emulsion-based film gets buried under a generalized term and I think, as it
becomes a less available--as this discussion has abundantly made clear--it
is important to think historically as we develop our vocabulary of the
changing moving image.
-tina
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:03:57 +0200
From: Pip Chodorov <frameworks_at_re-voir.com>
Subject: [Frameworks] eco-friendly developing with organic coffee
To: frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
Message-ID: <p0624080eca7d57b02371_at_[192.168.1.89]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Dear FrameWorkers,
My friend Enrico in Colombia has succeeded in developing with coffee.
There is a recipe and a test result on his blog
http://kinocoffe.blogspot.com/.
Has anyone else played with this?
...and no wisecracks please about developing a "coffee filter" for
final cut pro to mimic this result!
-Pip
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:06:10 +0200
From: David Kidman <david.kidman_at_gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] eco-friendly developing with organic coffee
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Message-ID: <6F086469-CE9A-462A-B399-DC9493473DD8_at_gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Yes Pip,
The trailer is here ,
http://www.davidkidman.com/films/DogsDinner.html
Best
david
Le 26 ao?t 2011 ? 16:03, Pip Chodorov a ?crit :
> Dear FrameWorkers,
> My friend Enrico in Colombia has succeeded in developing with coffee.
> There is a recipe and a test result on his blog
http://kinocoffe.blogspot.com/.
> Has anyone else played with this?
> ...and no wisecracks please about developing a "coffee filter" for
> final cut pro to mimic this result!
> -Pip
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
David Kidman
http://www.davidkidman.com
david.kidman_at_gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/201108
26/158c8b3f/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:07:29 -0400
From: tina wasserman <twasserman_at_verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Message-ID: <BA5A75A5-AB05-4208-B4CB-037C3D922AA4_at_verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Just thought, another source for confusion in terms:
in the definition below, would't 'digital' video also be an 'analog'
process? If an analog process is ANY means to reproduce then why make the
distinction between 'analog' and 'digital' video?
--tina
On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:05 PM, David Tetzlaff wrote:
> An analog process is one that uses ANY means to reproduce or record changes in
phenomenon by creating an analog of those changes in another medium.
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:23:12 -0500
From: Fred Camper <f_at_fredcamper.com>
Subject: [Frameworks] Analog and digital [was: Quo Vadis Celluloid?]
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Message-ID: <20110826092312.14985yhb6xra7rgo_at_fredcamper.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
format="flowed"
Quoting tina wasserman <twasserman_at_verizon.net>:
> Just thought, another source for confusion in terms:
>
> in the definition below, would't 'digital' video also be an 'analog'
> process? If an analog process is ANY means to reproduce then why
> make the distinction between 'analog' and 'digital' video?
> --tina
> On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:05 PM, David Tetzlaff wrote:
>
>> An analog process is one that uses ANY means to reproduce or record
>> changes in phenomenon by creating an analog of those changes in
>> another medium.
The key to the difference is how data is translated and stored.
An "analog" process will store light, for example, as continuities,
such as a continuous set of shades of emulsion or a continuous set of
almost infinitely variable signals on tape. So for an image that is
moving from light to shadow, the signal on the tape would gradually
get "darker," or the emulsion would gradually get darker, not in
discrete steps but ideally continuously.
Digital translates everything into ones and zeros, and only that. The
entirety of a digital image consists only of discrete numbers. If the
translation is fine enough, meaning the bandwitdth broad enough, the
difference will be hard (or, in theory, impossible) to see: the number
signalling brightness will go from 30,000 to 29,999 and so on in slow
steps. But early music CDs were said to sound "colder" than vinyl
recordings which are analog; the grooves vary continuously signalling
the sound (and this is in a way similar to the apparent "flatness" of
digital imagery), possibly due to the fact that "not enough" 1s and 0s
were being used, so that some residue of the digital process remained,
though some of that has been "solved" by better engineering.
Also, in terms of handling the data, analog and digital data require
completely different tools. And in some ways digital data is far
easier to manipulate (hence the current state of "special effects").
Fred Camper
Chicago
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:05:42 -0400
From: tina wasserman <twasserman_at_verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Analog and digital [was: Quo Vadis
Celluloid?]
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Message-ID: <8DBB27E4-83C6-497C-8FC3-830175180047_at_verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Yes, of course 'analog' and 'digital' video processes are very
different--thank you for your summary Fred, that is very helpful.
However, my central point was the potential problem with the definition of
'analog' David provided, which justifies use of the term to include
celluloid film AND analog video b/c it is defines analog as a process "that
uses ANY means to reproduce or record changes in phenomenon by creating an
analog of those changes in another medium."
If that definition stands, then it must include digital video as well b/c it
completely conforms to the definition that David provided; that is, digital
video is also a means "to reproduce or record changes in phenomenon by
creating an analog of those changes in another medium."
My point is precisely that if this definition stands than any reproductive
process is 'analog' and I find that problematic in that it becomes too
general a term to describe vastly different means of reproduction.
My call here is to stay specific and stay historic. As we move into a more
hybridized moment in the history of moving images. I just wish people would
refer to someone like Brakhage as an emulsion-based filmmaker, not someone
who worked in 'analog film.'
Perhaps I'm being too picky here, but I think when we use one term too
all-encompassing, the history of moving images becomes muddy. Especially as
that history will be less emulsion-based and more digitally-based in the
future.
For that reason, I will continue to use the terms "emulstion-based" or
"photo-chemically based" as descriptive terms for work that uses such
processes.
--tina
On Aug 26, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Fred Camper wrote:
> Quoting tina wasserman <twasserman_at_verizon.net>:
>
>> Just thought, another source for confusion in terms:
>>
>> in the definition below, would't 'digital' video also be an 'analog'
>> process? If an analog process is ANY means to reproduce then why
>> make the distinction between 'analog' and 'digital' video?
>
>> --tina
>> On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:05 PM, David Tetzlaff wrote:
>>
>>> An analog process is one that uses ANY means to reproduce or record
>>> changes in phenomenon by creating an analog of those changes in
>>> another medium.
>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:58:09 -0400
From: David Tetzlaff <djtet53_at_gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Message-ID: <4FDB3F28-6B72-4419-9366-E32CB3E24085_at_gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Aug 26, 2011, at 9:50 AM, tina wasserman wrote:
> I do think it's important to keep a separate category for celluloid
film--rather than create only two groups: 'analog' vs. 'digital.' In that case
the unique qualities of emulsion-based film gets buried under a generalized term
and I think it is important to think historically as we develop our vocabulary
of the changing moving image.
And I wasn't arguing against that point at all. I hope I've been clear that
I think specificity is important, and I think dumping stuff into overly
broad categories (like 'film' and 'video') is obfuscating rather than
illuminating. And if 'film' and 'video' are overly broad, then certainly so
too are 'analog' and 'digital'.
PS: digital devices (though not any digital recording technologies I can
think of) are not necessarily electronic either. c.f. Babbage's difference
engine and analytical engine, and more simply, an abacus.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
End of FrameWorks Digest, Vol 15, Issue 39
******************************************
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Received on Fri Aug 26 2011 - 17:10:47 CDT
