The companies that make film are letting it die.

From: Tim Halloran <>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)

I don't think it can be stated any better than this.

> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:15:12 -0600
> From:
> To:
> 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

FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks mailing list

Reply via email to