One of the interesting things here, I think, is that just about everyone
here allows for personal choices when it come to media. Even if those
choices are different we all seem to allow media makers to choose what
technology works for their own practice. This is as opposed to seeing in
the contemporary situation cinema a kind of vector along the lines of
this statement by Oskar Fischinger "oil on canvas is a thing of the
past" or that abstract cinema is necessarily a higher art than
"photographic realism" because "surface realism destroys the the deep
and absolute creative force". Probably that kind of modernism seems
quaint to our eyes and the idea of seeing in the cinema one way to work
seems uncomfortably essentialist to us and we are no longer interested
in that kind of purity. It seems our current attitude results in the
kind of work that we are making today -- works that refine and revise
past practices and not works that confound our sensibilities as viewers.
The idea that a completely novel form of cinema will change the way we
see the world (and thus change the world) is a kind of utopian glamour
that has been replaced by a more contradictory and provisional sort of
work.
On 8/22/2011 10:52 PM, Todd Eacrett wrote:
> You're going to start an acoustic vs. electric debate...
>
>
>> I'm sure it's just entropy or laziness on my part, but rather than
>> get excited about video, I think I'll just play the guitar.
>>
>> -Pip
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks_at_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 Tue Aug 23 2011 - 09:30:11 CDT
