I think this is an interesting question and perhaps more complex than the food metaphor is allowing. Also, to be fair to Fred, I don't think he's asking anyone to sit around and think about what they might do if film stops existing. I think he's asking us what draws us to making film to begin with.
To be candid, I began working with video out of a lack of means. Even if I were to buy a Super 8 camera (which I did) and film it still wasn't even remotely as cheap as video could be. Yes, video can be expensive, too. But I work with what I can, which is sometimes much, much less than what other people work with. I'll sometimes get asked what editing platform I use. I barely know what an editing platform is. When my iMovie died I started editing with Quicktime. When that stops working I'll do something else. For years I tried to simply make videos as I had conceived of the films I couldn't afford to make. I was only moderatley happy with anything I did. I felt it was derivative, plain, stupid and overly conceptual (which remains true). I then saw the videosof Kyle Canterbury. I can't tell you what an effect they had on me. I was immediately jealous of what he'd done. I remember watching one of them and literally saying out loud "Why hadn't I thought of
video like that?!"
Legend has it that when Buster Keaton began making films, he took it upon himself to disassemble a camera and learn about what each individual part inside of it did. Looking at his films today it's easy to see what he was after. His body movements are practically DESIGNED for 18 frames a second. In any event that's what seeing Kyle's work did to me. I even took apart video cameras and consulted old manuals to learn about the specific parts (one was a gift from my mother in law). I shot thousands and thousands of tests (something I still do today) to learn what kind of colors certain cameras could handle and what certain movements would and could do to an image. It took years but I finally began making work I was really happy with. I create images with video that are not possible with film. So, no, I didn't sit around and think about what I would do if I had to work with video. I just worked with video. Pretty soon I began thinking like video. I don't
want to work with film but if I had to stop making videos I would simply find another way.
-JB
________________________________
From: Fred Camper <f_at_fredcamper.com>
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
I doubt Microsoft or Google would be interested in buying Kodak. They
tend to buy new technology companies.
I have a question, though, for those horrified by the possible (but,
in my view and hope, not impending) demise of celluloid. I am
horrified, too, in terms of the resulting inability to replicate older
works made to be shown on film. But this is a question for present
practitioners. Imagine a good high-def or very high-def image shown on
a projector (DLP?) or monitor of your choice. What is there about your
particular practice that depends only on celluloid and could not be
accomplished with video? How major would the loss be for you, and what
kind of loss is it, and why would it be so major?
Fred Camper
Chicago
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Received on Fri Aug 19 2011 - 18:20:22 CDT
