A small point along the lines of political economy, as per David:
The decline of cinema on celluloid is dwarfed by the crisis and catastrophe of
the massive cuts to higher education, its humanities, its arts, its
professorial jobs, and all ideas and practices that are not instruments
advancing transnational capital.
Patricia R. Zimmermann, Ph.D.
Professor, Cinema, Photography and Media Arts
Roy H. Park School of Communications
Codirector, Finger Lakes Environmental Film Festival
953 Danby Road
Ithaca, New York 14850 USA
Office: +1 (607) 274 3431
FAX: +1 (607) 274 7078
---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:06:33 -0500
>From: frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com (on behalf of David Tetzlaff
>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
>To: f...@fredcamper.com,Experimental Film Discussion List
>> There are people who try to show film on film and can't, and
>> there are some who succeed.
>I did show film on film, not exclusively, but to the best I could manage.
>> But even when you can't, you can talk about
>> how the film shown on film actually looks,
>Of course, I did that.
>> and recommend screenings if
>> there are any in your locale,
>There aren't any screenings in my locale, but many of my students spent time
>in NYC and I strongly encouraged them to visit Anthology.
>> 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.
>We ought to give a lot more thought to this analogy. No one would accuse any
>art history professor showing slides of somehow violating the essence of the
>art-form under study.
>> Yet, at present, many do manage to keep their projectors going. And there
>> are still a lot of prints around.
>I think you are missing the point, which is about the critical mass needed to
>maintain an institution such as Canyon.
>> You seem to be appealing to some form of "majority rules" -- not enough care
>> about film on film, so it will die out.
>I'm not appealing to anything. I'm trying to construct an economic analysis of
>the viability of business models for experimental film distribution in the
>21st century. I'm not saying 'the majority should rule,' or making any
>proposition of policy. I'm saying that revenues have to come from somewhere,
>and there just aren't enough paying customers to keep the system going.
>> 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?
>How is it not clear that _I_ want print projection to be an available option
>for as many people as possible for as long as possible? Why do you think I
>take the time to write this shit and give straight answers to Scott's query?
>As for 'writing film's obituary,' well that's too much to bite off in this
>post, so I'll have to defer that for later.
>> That you profess to care "very little" for the artist's intentions as to
>> how a work should be shown leaves me speechless.
>To be clear, I care very little about the artist's intent ABOUT ANYTHING, not
>just about the artist's desires as to how a work is presented. But that does
>not mean I do not care about how a work is presented. I care about that very
>much. I simply believe that the range of 'right ways' to experience any work
>of art are embedded in the work itself, and may or may not correspond to the
>artist's desires. (A lot of times it does, just not always.) For me, the key
>battle here is not film/video but cinema vs. personal screens. I think many
>film works absolutely need to be seen on a large screen in a dark room in the
>company of other people. Young people today are happy with YouTube and their
>iPods. That leaves _me_ speechless, and the difference between those things is
>what I devoted my time trying to get my students to appreciate.
>Moreover, if we look at the other fine arts, we will see that there is
>tradeoff/tension between appropriate presentation (be that dictated by the
>conscious intent of the maker, or the nature of the text) on the one hand, and
>survival and preservation on the other. Are viewers meant to be separated from
>paintings by ropes, their encounters with the art under the obvious
>surveillance of suspicious docents? In the Art Institute of Chicago there is a
>wonderful room where a number of Cornell boxes are presented in a setting
>designed by Cornell himself that place the work in an enriching context.
>However this was not how Cornell intended the works to be engaged. He made
>them for individuals to hold, move, examine. Next to that room are a number of
>additional Cornell works in glass cases. The light reflecting off the case
>glass makes them very hard to see well, the viewer struggles in vain to get a
>good viewing angle, to get closer to the work. To me, this presentation is an
!fail in aesthetic terms. But I know why those pieces are in those glass
cases... You get a better sense of the spirit of those works from good
photographs, and then seeing them in person in that yukky setting fills in some
of the blanks about their physicality so it's not totally worthless. 'You can't
always get what you want, but maybe you can get what you need.'
>> 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.
>But you have so far failed to identify the aesthetic value that is gained or
>lost. You offer the usual technological litany (all of it of increasingly
>tenuous validity as technology develops, but that's not the point.) If you
>can't name what these things DO, name the value you do not want to lose (in
>some non-tautological way), we're not going to get anywhere.
>So far, all we have is the same-old same-old line: the co-ops are in trouble
>and its up to the academics to save them by ponying up more money. That is not
>going to work. Not even close. That's the box we need to get out of. If you
>think that getting out of that box is to 'write an obituary for film,' then I
>submit your concept of 'film' is patently absurd.
>FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks mailing list