This is a point that concerns me on a daily basis, as a publisher of video reproductions of avant-garde films.
It is essential to see the films on film. It is not enough that a reproduction looks good, or looks like the original. What is important is not what it looks like, but what it IS. When I film an event on 8mm or 16mm - a flower, a sunrise, a smile, whatever - the emulsion is phsyically altered on a molecular level on the film strip, the developing chemicals transform these into opacity and transparency, the projector's light is again physcically altered by this opacity and transparency, and the light that hits the screen and bounces into my retina is physically affecting my optic nerve, lateral geniculate nucleus and the visual cortex in my occipital lobe, again on a physical, cellular, atomic level. There is a direct, physical connection between the original event - the flower, the sunrise, the smile - and the here and now of watching it, my brain stimulus, invigorated by the flicker which produces the phi phenomenon, transforming the rapid slide show into motion. In a digital reproduction of the film, there is a veil of zeroes and ones interposed; these have no basis in material reality; the lack of flicker means no phi phenomenon, but only the beta effect is produced. We are far removed from the original physical event of filming, no matter how much it "looks like" it. This is why I called my company "Re:Voir" - "to see again," or, "about vision" - to raise consciousness that the DVDs are only reproductions to be used for study purposes, after we have seen the original film projected on film. These are only high-quality reproductions, such as a good Rizzoli art catalogue, that nobody would ever possibly mistake for the real thing. And no Cézanne lover would avoid a good Cézanne show, simply because they already have a catalogue with good color reproductions. Would a Brakhage lover stay home if Dog Star Man came to their home town, just because they happen to have the DVD on their shelf? Of course the digital signal is an interesting artistic medium too, since the neuronal brain activity in the act of vision is also made up of digital signals, but film artists using physical film technology to capture moments of life or perception are anticipating the physical projection event, just as a painter anticipates that people will see his canvas on the wall, not a photocopy, or a jpeg on a website... -Pip Chodorov At 17:32 -0800 19/02/12, Tim Halloran wrote: >Great observations, and I have in >fact structured my teaching of film studies >along the lines of the art history model. Just >as any worthy art history instructor speaks >not just to the value of experiencing the >original work of art but also to the fundamental >differences and deficiencies in the >reproduction, I too stress >the distinctions between experiencing a film as >it was intended to be seen and its >digital reproduction. This is not to ignore >the fact that commercial cinema was essentially >an art form of reproduction or that what we are >seeing when we watch a film print of any >experimental or avant-garde work is also very >likely a reproduction of the original. But a >certain deference and respect to the intended >exhibition format must be maintained and >accommodated whenever possible. > >Tim _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
