16fps... The guy sure knew how to be a contrarian. ''Warhol wasn't sufficiently concerned with the technical side of things...'' To say the least. As in - "How come your camera doesn't make any noise?'' :)
2015-08-07 14:12 GMT-04:00 Dave Tetzlaff <[email protected]>: > > It is in fact 'Sleep' that we'll be showing in Austin, TX in October; > I'm not hopeful that I'll be able to find two functioning 16fps projectors > locally... I got an email from someone encouraging me to instead use four > projectors, as it would cut the screening time in half. > > So...Why two instead of one? > > > Warhol would have been interested in the creative misuse of the > apparatus, and in the footage being submitted to and deformed by norms > enforced by mass-production and standardization. > > Would it not be within the spirit of 'Sleep' then, not only to have the > viewers endure the wait for reel changes, but to rewind each reel and put > it back in the can before threading the next one? I mean, given the TRT and > the aesthetics of boredom, what's a few more minutes? I'd argue 'Sleep' is > a performance art piece based in creating a mind-fuck around 'what it means > to watch a film', which becomes about what different people in the audience > at any screening DO in response to the challenge of 'how am I supposed to > engage this thing' when faced with a work for which no existing conventions > seem to apply, and which offers no hints of what 'rules' viewers might > apply to it. > > Which poses a question of 'extra-textuality' for exhibitors – as in > announcing a screening and inviting an audience some set of expectations > are set forth, if only by the larger context of how the screening space or > organization is framed (we show avant garde films), or the most minimal of > rubrics ("a film by Andy Warhol"). That context would change if the > screening was framed as a Happening, and the audience had access beforehand > to the idea I just presented (this is about what different viewers do with > it...). E.g. it's one thing if viewers are cued to the idea that it might > be more interesting to attend to what other people in the audience are > doing than to attend to what is or isn't happening on screen, and another > thing if they're left to discover that possibility for themselves. But like > everything about 'Sleep' I don't think there's a 'right' answer. > > Related random Factory-al thought: How about a screening where two bowls > of pills are placed on a table to one side of the screen, one containing > Adderall tabs, the other Klonopin? Thus other audience members could see > who goes for which pills and when... > > Related random post-Factory-al thought: How about getting a couple of > analytic projectors and showing 'Sleep' as a Ken-Jacobs-Nervous-System > thing that goes slowly back and forth through the footage at different > speeds and lasts, say, a whole week 24/7?? > > And who says four projectors would cut the TRT in half? Why not have four > screens and just shuttle the reels from one to the next, still > sequentially, Friar Jacques style? > > ...But if you set up something like that as one of those f***ing museum > installation loops so it just went on and on forever without beginning or > end and with people coming and going at random points whenever the hell > they wanted to, THAT would heresy! HERESY, I say!... :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
