I genuinely hope we can have a discussion, starting with the question of 'what 
really matters?' I have my own thoughts, but I want to hear what other people 
think and see if maybe some new ideas might emerge, you know, in dialogue.

Why is 'experimental film' important? Why does 'the world' need it? What does 
it do? How are these OUTCOMES special and not served by other art forms? Who 
comprises the potential audience, the people who might appreciate, love, need 
this work? 

Chuck has already mentioned that cinema screenings are significant social 
experiences. I was thinking more about the cultural properties of 'the texts,' 
but of course exhibition matters as well. So what social functions or 
experiences are attendant to experimental screenings that are different from 
screenings of commercial cinema, or even documentary/art-house fare for that 

My working assumption is that we have conflated physical forms with the value 
of the cultural material they have carried, and unwisely focused on the 
preservation of the former, rather than the preservation and _further 
dissemination_ of the latter. Even if you think the physical media and the 
cultural value are inseperable, IMHO it remains a worthwhile exercise, if only 
in an art historical sense, to clarify why this work matters, what it adds to 
the world.

FWIW, I do not think such a discussion will proceed productively in the typical 
email mode of jotting off quick, one-line rejoinders. I suggest the signs of 
the times merit more considered replies. (I mean really, Kodak declares 
bankruptcy, Canyon declares they might go under, and there's another crisis at 
Millenium all within the space of a month or so?)
FrameWorks mailing list

Reply via email to