I don't think it can be stated any better than this. Tim
> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:15:12 -0600 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept) > > David, > > Your post come in just after I posted mine. > > I'm sorry about your troubles. As I suggested earlier, everyone's > situation is different, and everyone is different. Maybe you had a > particularly bad situation. Maybe there were other reasons for your > troubles. There are people who try to show film on film and can't, and > there are some who succeed. But even when you can't, you can talk about > how the film shown on film actually looks, and recommend screenings if > there are any in your locale, in the same way that a good art history > teacher (of whom there are all too few) showing slides would talk about > what some of the art works actually look like. > > I have posted many times that maintaining projectors will be a key choke > point in the future. Labs and prints stocks will be another problem. Yet, > at present, many do manage to keep their projectors going. And there are > still a lot of prints around. > > You seem to be appealing to some form of "majority rules" -- not enough > care about film on film, so it will die out. Maybe you're right. Or maybe > a few of us will manage to keep it alive, for some decades into the > future. Who appointed you to write its obituary? > > That you profess to care "very little" for the artist's intentions as to > how a work should be shown leaves me speechless. In my experience, many do > care, once the issue is explained. But I guess if one doesn't care much > then one doesn't even address the issue. > > The specifics have been aired here many times: the differences between > film flicker and most forms of video, between projected film light and > other kinds of projection/display, between the physical look of projected > celluloid and the very different look of video. I don't prefer one to the > other. It is simply my claim that many of the best avant-garde (and other) > films come through far better in their intended format. This is not a > small question of "look" either. One might even say it's a question of > "ideology": that what the projected image presents itself as in relation > to seeing and to the world is something different from what most kinds of > video images present themselves as. > > Fred Camper > Chicago > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
