Re: [Frameworks] Film and video

From: David Tetzlaff <>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 21:28:49 -0400

Chill, ladies. This was a quickly composed email note, with a few examples tossed out off the top of Mr. Yalkut's head, not an exhaustive or representative list. All he meant to say is "Yeah, there are some people who do this."

To find significance in what is excluded in an off-the-cuff reply is a bit of an over-reach.

One could certainly take the msg. as an opportunity to draw attention to other artists who have used 'intermedia' processes, lighting a candle rather than whining about what Yalkut didn't say.

Actually, during this discussion I was thinking of the piece Jen Reeves shot on video (SHADOWS CHOOSE THEIR HORRORS, I think??). Anyway, when I saw it, i recall thinking the video image looked awful, and really detracted from the piece, which suffered greatly in comparison to the work Reeves has done in 16mm. Again, I don't think this proves anything about necessary distinctions between 'film' and 'video' as essences, but there's a lot of lame video out there, for sure.

I know, as already mentioned, that Jem Cohen has shot in Super-8, gone through digital intermediate, and back to higher rez film or video with very lovely results. If memory serves me, I think Reynolds Reynolds and Patrick Jolie used a similar process for their films.
On Aug 25, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Sandra Maliga wrote:
> with some women on it.
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:43 AM, Shelly Silver wrote:
>> this list should be way longer.
>> On Aug 24, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Jud Yalkut wrote:
>>> Filmmakers who have used video sometimwes interchangeably include:
>>> Ed Emshwiller, Stan Vanderbeek, Scott Bartlett, Tom Dewitt, and myself, Jud Yalkut.
>>> I particularly am intrigued by the contrasts in tactility between the two media,
>>> the qualituies of light, the volume of the image, depth of field, and granularities.
>>> One cannot say one is better than another, but gloriously different.
FrameWorks mailing list
Received on Thu Aug 25 2011 - 18:29:01 CDT