you cant unsubscribe this way and why do people do this kind of
'pronouncement' - its like acting out?
dont open the emails in a thread if its so horrific - what would you
fuckers do in a war zone for fuck sake?
i dont care if you leave the list really if you are so whiny
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Gisèle Gordon <gis...@urbannation.com>
wrote:
> Please unsubscribe me from the list. I thank everyone for the knowledge
> and wisdom they have shared.
>
> The current tone is unfortunate. Perhaps people could email each other
> privately or meet for coffee to discuss their differences?
>
> I have very much appreciated all the knowledge that wisdom shared over the
> years, thank you again to this generous community.
>
> gisele
>
>
> On 15-03-31 10:59 PM, "Cari Machet" <carimac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> listen i am NOT a white person i dont react with a smile when i am faced
> with someone that doesnt even think about humility and self critique
>
> i would NEVER tell other people to 'calm down' it also lacks humility
>
> i went to art school where thankfully i was taught the art of critique and
> self critique which i think is an incredible gift - may others find this
> profound tool or even remotely think about the concept
>
> kelly you can also fuck off for playing the gender card and in such an
> offhanded way - disgusting and one of the many reasons i despise the very
> word feminist
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Elizabeth McMahon <elizmcma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I apologize, in general, for whatever. I don't want to add to polemics
> that disdain and dissuade an inclusive environment. Like Sasha, I barely
> contribute, to most listservs, for fear of attack and ridicule, and yet I
> did apparently myself, however, depending on your POV, regarding her
> remarks directed at Gene Youngblood, which really irked me, and I do not
> apologize for them. I hope their tone was professional, but if not, then I
> was wrong. I know I can be a smart ass, but I did have fundamental problems
> with Sasha's public comments of Gene's remarks, and I make no apology for
> them.
>
> Elizabeth McMahon
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:41 PM, chris bravo <iamdir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Saying that a film makes students want to commit suicide isn't a critique,
> its an offensive derogatory statement, which is directed not just towards
> the filmmaker, but towards her students especially.
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 1:27 PM Dave Tetzlaff <djte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Chill out, people!
>
> This is a Listserv. People write short posts quickly, and hit 'Send'.
> "Rhetorical excess" comes with the territory as we dash off our thoughts
> w/o reflecting deeply about whether our wording will read to others with
> the meanings they had for us when they popped into our heads.
>
> I took Sasha's OP as meant to advocate for films that have a sort of
> perspective not-yet presented in the thread -- works one perhaps could call
> more 'post-modern' engagements with culture and identity. I took the crack
> about Wavelength as essentially tangential and polemic -- an observation
> that many contemporary students are not much engaged with the aesthetic
> concerns of that work. It's not clear whether Sasha's pique was directed at
> Wavelength specifically or 'mid-century High modernism' in general -- i.e.
> maybe all 'structural film' and/or Brakhage abstractions etc.?? Regardless,
> intentionally or not, her language was destined to stir the pot, make some
> folks feel poked with a stick, and fire off testy replies.
>
> No film is beyond criticism, including observations that whatever it's
> merits for other situations, it's a poor choice for a given programmer or
> teacher's goals in addressing the specific audiences they have at hand.
> Sasha's snark was phrased as too universal: seeming to suggest Wavelength
> is no longer any good to ANY group of "curious, excited young artists".
> But, indeed, I'm sure there ARE groups of "curious, excited young artists"
> without a background in cinema who would find Wavelength alienating, at
> least initially, and it's perfectly valid to pass on that film for an
> introduction to experimental film in favor of something more immediately
> engaging to the group at hand.
>
> As Gene so pungently observed, the problem starts with the absurdity of
> Donal's original query. First, the "3 films" concept makes no sense, since
> experimental films range in length from a few minutes to several hours. (My
> gag 3: Star Spangled to Death, Sleep, The Extravagent Shadows... no
> intermissions or bathroom breaks!) Second, "essential" is just silly and
> off-point. Unlike Hollywood films directed at mass audiences and respecting
> a common set of conventions, experimental works are often very personal,
> and incredibly varied in form and content. Thus, what works are and aren't
> "essential" is not remotely universal, but conditional and contingent on
> "for whom?" and "for what purpose?" Third, this variety and specificity
> means trying to crowd-source a list of '3 essentials' is utter folly, that
> can only lead to unproductive arguments if people play along.
>
> In the thread OP, Donal didn't tell us anything about his own approach to
> "the realm of the moving image" or what kinds of art practices and
> aesthetics the folks attending the workshops will be "coming from". For all
> we know, the attendees could all be middle-aged ceramicists or landscape
> painters. Ultimately, he needs to pick works that speak to him in some way
> he thinks will enable him to use them to engage 'noobs'. So it is with any
> instance of programming films. The work must 'fit' the programmer, the
> audience, and the purpose.
>
> Given the lack of info in the query, responses have (as one would expect)
> presumed teaching or exhibition situations with which the posters are
> familiar: Andy and Gene spoke of their students; Sasha referred to YOUNG
> ARTISTS. But I read the OP as posing an audience of experienced working
> artists who presumably already have some sort of aesthetic perspective,
> rather than the sort of student population that would sign up for a studies
> course in experimental film.
>
> Just as there is no universal "3 essential films", there is more than one
> valid pedagogical approach to introducing noobs to experimental cinema.
> Sometimes you want to ease folks in, showing work that has some familiar
> elements. Meshes is probably the most widely used introduction to
> experimental work, and over the decades so many of its elements have been
> incorporated into pop culture (advertising, music video, etc.), and it's
> subject matter (angst at gender roles and domesticity) is so enduring, that
> it offers a variety of access points. That works. But for some groups being
> introduced to experimental work, what I call 'deep end of the pool
> pedagogy' can work as well or better -- tossing the initiates into the
> strangest water possible w/o a life-jacket, then tossing a safety line into
> the trashing if it's not getting anywhere...
>
> Andy and Gene speak of student appreciation of Wavelength, but under what
> conditions? What courses have they taken before? Is Wavelength the FIRST
> screening on the syllabus? Sasha's put-down seemed to me to posit
> Wavelength as a poor choice for point-of-entry, not something not worth
> screening at all, and I totally understand that. When I first taught
> 'experimental' I screened it about half-way through the term, but found the
> 'bang' too minimal for the screening time, and concluded any pedagogical
> purpose I had for showing it was better served by something else. (E.g. I
> kept <-->. A practical issue with Wavelength: depending on the sound system
> and the volume settings, that audio wave CAN be a form of physical torture,
> and we don't all have the kind of control of screening situations we'd
> like.)
>
> Gene overstates, or perhaps just lacks clarity, in his response to Sasha.
> I'd agree that anyone teaching experimental film at the college level
> should be able to present Wavelength in a way that activates student
> "excitement and curiosity." But that's a far cry from saying that film will
> engage those qualities in and of itself for any and all initiates w/o
> proper introduction and framing, and farther still from making a case
> Wavelength is among the best choices for an introduction in any given
> setting. I know Sasha just a little bit from various conferences
> back-in-the-day, and I'm quite confident she could teach Wavelength well if
> someone tssked her to do so. I do understand how Gene would read Sasha's
> off-hand jibe as 'Wavelength is so anachronistic, no one can make any good
> use of it now with young people.' And if that's what she meant to say, and
> seriously so... well, yeah, that would be pretty darn lame. But if we read
> Listserv posts with charity, we might just take her point as '_I_ find a
> lot of newer work more compelling than Wavelength, and so do the students
> who wind up in my classes, so it doesn't work well as an introduction FOR
> US, and i have a lot of choices that works a lot better for our situation.'
> That's not laziness, cowardice, or betrayal. We have no idea how
> challenging Sashs's students find It Wasn't Love, November, or A Little
> Death to be, or in what ways, or how that sets up the rest of her course. I
> don't know any of those pieces myself, and they're certainly not canon, so
> Sasha may have come to them via diligent searching, loyalty to the ongoing
> energy of avant-garde works, and courage in programming beyond the usual
> suspects.
>
> None of us are in a position to judge her harshly for her choices, or for
> her opinion of Wavelength. But she's not in a position to assert Wavelength
> is useless to other teaching situations. And I think both Sasha and Gene
> know that perfectly well (they're both smart and know their stuff), and
> this little kerfuffle would never occur in actual conversation, because
> neither party really meant their words in the way they've been read.
>
> So how about EVERYBODY apologize for anything that may have been taken as
> a personal attack, or an over-reaching universal claim, and we try to make
> something actually USEFUL out of this sorry-ass thread? Sashs's post had
> some vague abbreviated points about why she finds the films she listed to
> be useful introductions, and the posts on Wavelength make moves in a
> similar direction. How 'bout we expand on that?
>
> Thus, suggested discussion topic:
> &bull Define an at least modestly specific audience of experimental film
> beginners: background (age, experience, culture), interest in the subject,
> ('makers'? 'scholars'? both?) and an at least modestly specific setting
> (semester course? 3-day workshop? single presentation?
> &bull Tell us what you would show this group as their FIRST experimental
> film viewing experience. TRT not to exceed 60 minutes. (A single major
> work, a program of related shorts - e.g. 'The films of Maya Deren', or a
> diverse program of shorts.)
> &bull Explain how the choice fits your passions, the group's interests and
> tendencies, and the situation. What pedagogical values you find in the
> work(s) you've chosen.
>
> (I'd start, but i'm already late to an appt.!!)
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks <
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
--
Cari Machet
NYC 646-436-7795
carimac...@gmail.com
AIM carismachet
Syria +963-099 277 3243
Amman +962 077 636 9407
Berlin +49 152 11779219
Reykjavik +354 894 8650
Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>
7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187
Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the
addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without
permission is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
