This really does seem a little too cynical. No one is suggesting any
such thing. I'm just trying to represent the work of someone who is
already well-known and presumably taken seriously. And I guess what
it takes is being clear about one's expectations and sticking to it.
If, on the other hand, you mean how does one get taken seriously, or
'known,' to begin with, I guess how one got "known" back in the 60s
and 70s was quite a different matter from how it might happen
now. . . . But fortunately, there are a lot of good film festivals,
with a lot of good curators and programmers who show interesting
selections of both new and old films. Right? And there are some
really good museum curators who go to a lot of these festivals and see
the work. Granted, it can be hard to get noticed in a crowded field.
But I guess people continue to use both old and new networks for
sharing their work.
However, this is an entirely different conversation, and one that many
other people can address better than me.
MB
On 5-Mar-12, at 8:41 PM, John Woods wrote:
>Balsom rightly points out that in the museum world there is a
double standard “whereby experimental film-makers are treated with
less respect than ‘artists working in film’ – such as Tacita >Dean,
Stan Douglas or Matthew Buckingham – whose work is never subject to
such transpositions.” She goes on to say that “recent exhibition
practices have demonstrated the persistent
And what was it that put the work of these people into their vaunted
status in the museum world? Gallery representation? Art school cred?
Press manipulation (publicity stunts, etc.)? Is that what a
filmmaker needs to do to be taken seriously? I guess that seems to
mostly work for Hollywood.
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
