Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
Anyone can walk by a painting liking it or not, but sitting in a darkened room as a captive audience may not have quite as many dedicated fans True. But people who walk by a painting not liking it aren't exactly fans. One of the benefits of a proper theatrical screening space is that viewers can leave without creating the sort of interruptions that afflict the comings and goings of typical 'installations.' I've been to two public screenings of Warhol films, both of which started with audiences of 40-50, and when I lights came up I saw that less than 10 other folks besides myself had stuck it out. But I hadn't noticed the deflections. Some of this just involves really simple things like creating a transition space between the 'theater' and the 'lobby' that creates some kind of light block, and making sure the hardware on the door closers isn't super loud. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
I don't know much of her story either, though yes, she apparently had art world connections. She seems to work mainly in film, but is represented by a gallery. Some people on the list must be familiar with her work? . . . However beautiful or interesting her films may be, there are certainly many others equally worthy, I should think, so presumably it has something to do with the networks she is in, in addition to whatever inherent value her work has. I could engage in a little cynicism of my own (not about her specifically, but about art world choices in general and what drives them), but perhaps that's easy enough for anyone to see -- and I have to get back to work now, so am signing off for awhile . . . MB A little of my own cynicism: There is a certain degree of spectacle, and of an accessibility of ideas that can be talked about that influence On 5-Mar-12, at 11:33 PM, John Woods wrote: 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. Yes, that was a dumb, cynical remark I made. But I do have a genuine question as to what were the circumstances that allowed those artists to achieve their special status in the art world presenting film in a gallery setting? I'm mainly familiar with Stan Douglas's work of the past decade which includes film photography (which have sometimes been photos related to a film), so he's got the art school and artist from another field thing in his support but what of Tacita Dean? I havn't seen her work but from my quick study online (ok just wikipedia) she seems to be a filmmaker who happened to be associated with a group of traditional artists who got some notoriety in the late 80s. Clearly she's had a great career, but would the galleries have called if she didn't have famous friends? ___ 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
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
gallery representation is the key On Mar 5, 2012, at 11:41 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 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/arts/design/juan-downey-the-invisible-architect-at-bronx-museum.html?_r=1ref=design Sculptures That Answer Back ‘Juan Downey: The Invisible Architect’ at Bronx Museum By MARTHA SCHWENDENER Published: March 1, 2012 And here you can see the other reason, besides the dearth of photo ops, that Mr. Downey has gotten short shrift in art history: museums do not know how to exhibit video. The installation of Mr. Downey’s mature works in the current show qualifies as a crime against art, since several of them are set up so closely in the back gallery that the audio tracks literally interrupt and cancel each other out. The effect would be comic — the ultimate version of exhibition design as postmodern pastiche — if it weren’t so depressing. This, after all, is the first major survey of Mr. Downey’s work in this country, and to see it mishandled this way is yet another testament to how video, more than 40 years into its life as an art medium, is still treated like the unwanted stepchild of contemporary art. Insisting that the work be shown effectively is a part of making it work. -- Sandy Maliga On Mar 6, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Shelly Silver wrote: gallery representation is the key On Mar 5, 2012, at 11:41 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 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 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
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
an inter-negative is still a reproduction subject to the qualities of the film stock and the available technology to make it from the original. The original is ultimately fugitive and undergoes changes as does the internegative and certainly the prints. The museum would need to own and care for the fragile artifact the same way they struggle to preserve some master 2-D work done on bad paper with inappropriate enamels like they must do with some important early Abstract Expressionist work. The film commodity would have to be dealt with in a way that even a great piece of photography does not require. Museums do not need to own original negatives of photographic prints do they? I am thinking that the very nature of film and the experience of it is somehow inherently outside of this commodity model and better kept within the democratic model, since it is all reproduction on one level or another. Photographic reproduction of paintings do not contain the ultimate subtle nuance of the pigments on the canvas (which themselves are subject to age over long periods of time). My experience during the era when there were plenty of film labs, was that even then every print was slightly different. Most people know and learn first about art history from reproductions in books, and hopefully, are encouraged to see and experience as much work in the live form as possible, but let us not underestimate the reality and importance of these various forms of reproduction, which may ultimately have to include digital technology for the dissemination of the basic information. Then hopefully one can ideally see a film or two at a museum somewhere. Meanwhile an awful lot can be experienced and learned from these other forms of reproduction. Currently there is hardly enough readily available digitally formatted material to get much of an overview of the whole scope of experimental/avant garde film. Its all economic I guess. First from the struggling filmmakers who are trying to get some money for all their efforts and sacrifices to the high cost of making good quality DVDs with a questionable market to justify the expense. Which does make me wonder what the numbers are for Criterion's involvement in the Brakhage anothologies I and II. eg. how much did it cost to produce, how much was made, etc. did the numbers really work out, apparently so What is the potential then for the rest of the work in the overall genre? Would such democratic availability then totally destroy the museum commodity model well maybe no, books on Van Gogh just make the lines for the museum show just that much longer around the block... sorry I am just thinking out loud, meandering, procrastinating while I should be doing something else. normally I just delete such thoughts without posting too many rigid pedantic sharks out there, but what the hell Myron Ort On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:34 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote: would the galleries have called if she didn't have famous friends? I can't speak to specific case, but 'famous friends' definitely matter... if they're artists. As Shelly says, gallery representation is the key, and galleries have to have something to sell. The exchange value of an art commodity is partly determined by its connection to a 'scene' or 'movement' ... A number of years ago, I attended a conference devoted to the work of a well known (but sadly deceased) experimental filmmaker. One of the speakers was a very highly placed curator. This person's talk was entirely about the circle of artists who had lived near and interacted with the filmmaker, all of them identified with media other than film. I was bored stiff by the talk, which struck me as mere trivia. But, in hindsight, I can see that from a curatorial mindset, the speaker was making an argument for the importance of the filmmaker, based on that maker's position in that larger circle of art-world developments -- as it happens, the maker did have famous friends (or friends who became famous). While utterly pointless from my perspective, the talk may have been quite daring for the curator, raising a 'mere filmmaker' to the level of the maker's cohorts in 'non-time-based-media'. In fact, the curator in question could certainly be considered a historical force in the current interest of the museum world in 'all things cinematic'. Marilyn wrote: given that this interest currently exists, the question becomes what to do with it, and how to ensure that works in film -- from all artists working with it -- are equally valued and given equal respect regarding their presentation. While I think Marilyn and I are basically on the same page, I would submit that if one truly does 'get' the economics of the art world, then one has the answer to those questions. The museums have to have more than interest.
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
I was probably exaggerating about the work a museum would need to do to maintain a film work. Probably no worse than the climate controlled rooms for great paintings etc. and the budgets for restorations. The museums could own the orignal work, the internegative, and the print, and finance the exclusive production of the DVDs, market the DVDs the same way they make money on catalogues, books, and post cards of their great holdings. They need to see the sense of this whole model. They could promote the importance of experiencing the films in the original format after they generate a new and enormous audience based on their presentation of democratically available reproduction media. Myron Ort On Mar 6, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Myron Ort wrote: an inter-negative is still a reproduction subject to the qualities of the film stock and the available technology to make it from the original. The original is ultimately fugitive and undergoes changes as does the internegative and certainly the prints. The museum would need to own and care for the fragile artifact the same way they struggle to preserve some master 2-D work done on bad paper with inappropriate enamels like they must do with some important early Abstract Expressionist work. The film commodity would have to be dealt with in a way that even a great piece of photography does not require. Museums do not need to own original negatives of photographic prints do they? I am thinking that the very nature of film and the experience of it is somehow inherently outside of this commodity model and better kept within the democratic model, since it is all reproduction on one level or another. Photographic reproduction of paintings do not contain the ultimate subtle nuance of the pigments on the canvas (which themselves are subject to age over long periods of time). My experience during the era when there were plenty of film labs, was that even then every print was slightly different. Most people know and learn first about art history from reproductions in books, and hopefully, are encouraged to see and experience as much work in the live form as possible, but let us not underestimate the reality and importance of these various forms of reproduction, which may ultimately have to include digital technology for the dissemination of the basic information. Then hopefully one can ideally see a film or two at a museum somewhere. Meanwhile an awful lot can be experienced and learned from these other forms of reproduction. Currently there is hardly enough readily available digitally formatted material to get much of an overview of the whole scope of experimental/avant garde film. Its all economic I guess. First from the struggling filmmakers who are trying to get some money for all their efforts and sacrifices to the high cost of making good quality DVDs with a questionable market to justify the expense. Which does make me wonder what the numbers are for Criterion's involvement in the Brakhage anothologies I and II. eg. how much did it cost to produce, how much was made, etc. did the numbers really work out, apparently so What is the potential then for the rest of the work in the overall genre? Would such democratic availability then totally destroy the museum commodity model well maybe no, books on Van Gogh just make the lines for the museum show just that much longer around the block... sorry I am just thinking out loud, meandering, procrastinating while I should be doing something else. normally I just delete such thoughts without posting too many rigid pedantic sharks out there, but what the hell Myron Ort On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:34 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote: would the galleries have called if she didn't have famous friends? I can't speak to specific case, but 'famous friends' definitely matter... if they're artists. As Shelly says, gallery representation is the key, and galleries have to have something to sell. The exchange value of an art commodity is partly determined by its connection to a 'scene' or 'movement' ... A number of years ago, I attended a conference devoted to the work of a well known (but sadly deceased) experimental filmmaker. One of the speakers was a very highly placed curator. This person's talk was entirely about the circle of artists who had lived near and interacted with the filmmaker, all of them identified with media other than film. I was bored stiff by the talk, which struck me as mere trivia. But, in hindsight, I can see that from a curatorial mindset, the speaker was making an argument for the importance of the filmmaker, based on that maker's position in that larger circle of art-world developments -- as it happens, the maker did have famous friends (or friends who became famous). While utterly pointless from my perspective, the talk may have been quite daring for the curator, raising a 'mere filmmaker' to the level of the
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
Great post Myron!! Myron wrote: The film commodity would have to be dealt with in a way that even a great piece of photography does not require. That's a valid point, but I wonder if it might cut both ways. That is, the cost of maintaining a film might initially be a hurdle for museums since they now hold film in low esteem. But if that 'art-world interest in all things cinematic' keeps rolling, the fragility of the text can actually add to its economic value as it establishes an auratic element. (I honestly don't know, but I'd guess the care required for those abstract expressionist works with sub-optimal pigments and substrate adds to their cache? Does it?) I am thinking that the very nature of film and the experience of it is somehow inherently outside of this commodity model and better kept within the democratic model, since it is all reproduction on one level or another. But some reproductions are better than others, and at some point the difference matters. The premise I'm granting in this whole discussion is the FRAMEWORKS truism that there is something unique in a celluloid print of many works that is worth preserving and trotting out on occasion (which, BTW, I actually believe). And all the things I've observed in the last 20 years indicate that the circulation of celluloid prints cannot be sustained within a democratic model. The rental costs to much compared to the number of people who give a damn. Given the economy of information (circulation increases value) the film print gets caught in a vicious downward spiral -- if suitable digital reproductions are not available. Film projection becomes more difficult to do -- films available only as prints get shown less -- fewer people see and talk about the work -- the work recedes toward the background noise of the culture -- demand continues to decline. Most people know and learn first about art history from reproductions in books, and hopefully, are encouraged to see and experience as much work in the live form as possible, but let us not underestimate the reality and importance of these various forms of reproduction, which may ultimately have to include digital technology for the dissemination of the basic information. Then hopefully one can ideally see a film or two at a museum somewhere. Meanwhile an awful lot can be experienced and learned from these other forms of reproduction. Yeah, baby. Yeah! Currently there is hardly enough readily available digitally formatted material to get much of an overview of the whole scope of experimental/avant garde film. Exactly!! (Roll on brother Myron!) Its all economic I guess. First from the struggling filmmakers who are trying to get some money for all their efforts and sacrifices to the high cost of making good quality DVDs with a questionable market to justify the expense. Which does make me wonder what the numbers are for Criterion's involvement in the Brakhage anothologies I and II. eg. how much did it cost to produce, how much was made, etc. did the numbers really work out, apparently so What is the potential then for the rest of the work in the overall genre? OK, now this is really important. The Hollywood model isn't going to work for experimental film either. Nobody's going to make a significant sum of money distributing experimental DVDs at any price. I mean, I hope Criterion is in the black on the Brakhage disks, and I hope Su Freidrich is getting something back from her DVDs, but even small profits are likely to accrue only to a few 'stars' (just as with print rental income FWIW). But... Would such democratic availability then totally destroy the museum commodity model well maybe no, books on Van Gogh just make the lines for the museum show just that much longer around the block... That's an Ed McMahon, YESS! (Can I get an Amen!) This is why I said the museum model is way more workable for moving image work of celluloid 'original'. If you shoot in 1080P, the only difference between the 'original' and the 'reproduction' is the compression artifacting in the distribution copy, which is hardly enough to support art-object status. But if you can turn film-film into a reasonable facsimilie of an auratic art object, there's your source of income (DISCLAIMER: I don't know Jen Reeves, but I'm just plucking the first hypothetical that comes to mind, so in what follows I'm talking about an abstract 'Jen Reeves' not the actual person...) Let's say 'Jen Reeves' made a DVD of 'Chronic' (with a Kinetta scan, of course ;-), and put an .iso of it on the web under a Creative Commons license, freely available for download and showing. LOTS of film and women's courses would quickly add it to their syllabi. Writing about the film, and 'Reeves' other work would multiply in publications both scholarly and hip/popular. 'Reeves' would receive economic benefit in the form of higher personal
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
On Mar 6, 2012, at 2:52 PM, David Tetzlaff wrote: This is why I said the museum model is way more workable for moving image work of celluloid 'original'. If you shoot in 1080P, the only difference between the 'original' and the 'reproduction' is the compression artifacting in the distribution copy, which is hardly enough to support art-object status. But if you can turn film-film into a reasonable facsimilie of an auratic art object, there's your source of income This is kind of the crux of the matter. The filmmaker could then have renewed justification for working in precious (expensive) celluloid to produce an artifact that would be of high value as a potential museum owned commodity. The museum would then own a unique one of kind work of cinema art which would likely last longer than some digital file. This original (or an internegative depending on how sticky or fugtive that first original might be), would be purchased by the museum and would become the source for whatever level of reproduction both celluloid or digital. The museum would have exclusive rights, the same as a multimillion dollar painting they owned. The film screenings of the perfect (one of kind) print in the perfect theater would be the equivalent of seeing an original painting and perhaps would generate a serious audience depending on how it was promoted through an educational process and promotions which the dvd reproductions and associated literature could inspire. I do not see any reason why a rejuvenated large audience for art film could not be generated this way from amongst the hordes of museum goers. Of course there is the matter of just how many humans out there really have the cognitive perceptual physiology to handle some experimental aspects of avant garde cinema. Anyone can walk by a painting liking it or not, but sitting in a darkened room as a captive audience may not have quite as many dedicated fans, they would at least know something from experiencing the dvd reproduction. They could go to the shows of the work they think they get, and maybe some will even learn to venture outside of just knowing what they like and liking what they know and learn to break through to experience cinema as something other than escapist entertainment. Myron Ort ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
Marilynn, implicitly if not explicitly, poses the question: How is it that filmmakers are not considered 'artists' within the 'art world'? To FRAMEWORKers, that question is surely rhetorical. Of course, filmmakers are artists, and it's simply silly for anyone to draw the sorts of distinctions for which Marilyn faults Balsom. But the art world DOES draw this distinction, and it's worth asking why. The history of artists (i.e. painters and sculptors) A very important point slips by in the parentheses; it's not just filmmakers who are 'not artists.' Poets, novelists, composers, musicians, dancers, choreographers, playwrights, stage-directors etc. etc. Only painters and sculptors and the like really count. So, what is the operating definition here? I submit it is this: An artist is a person who makes 'art.' 'Art' is a unique physical object that has commodity status. It can be sold, acquired, possessed, collected and accrue economic value in the process of exchange. Without those properties, creative work has no function within the instrumentalities of the art world: you can't do with it the things that art-world people do. So it's 'not art.' An 'art work' has to have a provenance, and it's history and value as an object becomes tied to the history of it's author. 'Artists' are important in the art world because their imprimatuer affects the commodity status of their work. As such a mediocre film by a painter is more worthy of attention than a great film by a filmmaker, because the painter has an established commodity cache. I feel kind of gob-smacked that so many people seem not to 'get' the basic political economy of art -- or maybe it's an aesthetic economy, but anyway it's some kind of economy -- since Benjamin and Lukacs have laid it out so clearly. Curators still don't what to do with Duchamp. When I visited the Tate a few years back, they had 'Fountain' on display, accompanied by a wall card that noted in very serious language that this was not the ORIGINAL 'Fountain' by Duchamp himself, but rather a 'limited' reproduction created by Richard Hamilton at Duchamp's behest and with his seal of approval. I almost fell over laughing. Benjamin especially nailed how film upsets the whole aesthetic apple cart. No aura, no cult value: an artform by definition liberated from the old way. There was an implicit (if inchoate) leftist politics in the formation of experimental film institutions such as Anthology, FMC and Canyon. If filmmakers were hostile to the museum and gallery world, they had damn good reason to be, on a variety of higher principles. (This is a very different thing than being hostile to the art in the museums.) Here, as synecdoche, I'll just references the writings of Jack Smith, and note that in his later years he was chummy with the post-marxist folks at Semiotext(e), and suggested that they simply re-title the journal 'Hatred of Capitalism,' (which they later used as the title of an anthology). But time moves on, situations change. It is no longer possible for institutions, much less artists, to support themselves by renting celluloid prints. The all-powerful market speaks, and most of us have to find some way to pay for rent and groceries. The only way for an 'experimental filmmaker' to thrive in the art world is to adopt the practices of that world, even though they may be antithetical to the apparent nature of the medium. As Chuck notes, photography faced a similar problem. Photographic prints though, unlike film prints, are subject to significant manipulation in enlarging from the negative. Thus, a photographic print can achieve auratic, commodity status: there is only one 'Piss Christ' and that has been destroyed... Marilyn quotes Balsam: “recent exhibition practices have demonstrated the persistent vestiges of not considering film to be a legitimate artistic medium on a par with, say, painting or sculpture -- unless, that is, it is sold in limited editions on the art market. Despite the increasing interpenetration of the worlds of art and experimental film, these lasting ramifications of their differing models of distribution and acquisition continue to mark out a divide between the two realms and their treatment in the contemporary museum. Woot. There it is. Marilyn, (putting the real skinny in parentheses again): [Further to these points, the selling by filmmakers of limited editions of their work (on celluloid) to museums may, indeed, become more of a norm, as the use of digital reproductions increasingly becomes the norm elsewhere.] In a nutshell, somebody has to pay the bills, and right now the best bet is the 'art-world'. And the only way to extract resources from the art-world is to give them what they value: objects that fit the art world model of purchasing and ownership.(MB) What then do 'film artists' (or their estates) do? Withdraw all prints from circulation, and sell the entire materiality
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
David, I agree with you that some films definitely need to be seen in the traditional cinematic context of dark theatre/auditorium and large projection. (Though I don't think that 'big' is ALWAYS a necessary cinematic experience. Some of my most profound aesthetic experiences of films have taken place in a living room on a relatively small screen.) I am also not endorsing gallery-type film installations for all films, only for some films. And I am trying to advocate for it being done well (which, as Myron's description of the Bruce Conner show demonstrates, is possible). I agree that some film installations (including Brakhage) have been awful. For me, this has been a learning process as to what, exactly, I've had to spell out and ask for. One can't assume anything, and it's a constant struggle. The increased availability of film works on DVD that you support is also something I'm fine with, just as long as we do have SOMEWHERE it will still be possible for the films to be seen in their original form. That is what I think (and what Erika Balsom was also suggesting, I believe) may become the proper role of the museums, then -- with some films shown in galleries (and they can sometimes be isolated in sections of galleries, in quiet and darkened spaces) and some shown in museum auditoria. The difficulty is in getting the museums and galleries to approach this in a serious and respectful way, not just presenting us with more of, as you describe it, the available AV distraction of everyday life. Marilyn On 5-Mar-12, at 3:54 PM, David Tetzlaff wrote: IMHO, the real battle is not 'film vs. digital', but 'cinema vs. iPod'. My personal experience is that the experimental films I value most highly do not suffer much from slight image degradations, but do suffer greatly when withdrawn from the context of cinema: i.e. display on a large screen in a darkened room. You have to concentrate to 'get' a lot of this stuff. It NEEDS a certain scale, needs to trap you in your seat without the available AV distraction of everyday life, to force you to deal with it's otherness. As such, I find Marilyn's endorsement of gallery-type film installations disturbing. I've seen a number of them (including Brakhage) and I thought they all were awful, basically reducing the work to 'TV': small screen, too much ambient light, people wandering in and out distractedly... (The one exception being an Anthony McCall piece where the constant influx of people in and out of the room, figuring out the sculptural nature of the thing, then playing with the beam seemed just right.) If anybody has the responsibility to present the material in a way that maximizes it's integrity, it's museums. But they don't value the work in that sense, because they can't value it in the other sense, so maybe we'd get better screenings under a regime of purchasing and ownership. (???) ___ ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
I am in very deeply in agreement with both the frustration and the appraisals. I'll start by saying that Stan Brakhage is an Artist working in the medium of film. What I would observe in answer to this dilemma, in total agreement with David, is so simple and straight-forward that it seems ludicrous: paintings, drawings, sculpture are things that get collected first and foremost for their unique, one-of-a-kind nature. But also as within the continuum of the visual tradition associated with other ritually-based institutions (Monarchy and Clergy). Graphic arts, engravings and lithographs, were always cheaper reproductions without the auratic cache of original works of art. The introduction of photography and cinema only complicated this formula in favor of the Art, not of the film. Hollywood's position in the culture industry only furthers the problems. Now to back away from the original/copy issue, the next layer of the onion tends to be about the Art being placed into museum collections and finding its audiences through exhibitions, while the films are placed into archives and given screenings to attract their audiences. The goal of the Art is to be collected while the film operates at the other end of continuum seeking screenings. And the museum collection is conceived as a cultural history which needs to be preserved, while an archive maintains holdings awaiting future uses, but not fully integrated into an existing cultural history. I think to compare the operations of FMC, Canyon, etc. with the Castelli/Sonnabend project in the mid-1970s is instructive. Castelli/ Sonnabend sought to place works into collections, although it was also willing to facilitate screenings, and they were about producing symbolic value for the work, while it seems that the coops have served many functions, but the production of symbolic value falls way down the list. In the spirit of this question, I've wondered how the elements of this debate, and the other film/digital debates, might change if we re-conceived of the frame in terms of projection versus monitors? This might allow a middle position recognizing the material need to preserve a print, while also seeking a manner to exhibit a film/ projection outside the cinema screening format, and to be placed into an on-going presentation within the gallery space--possibly resulting in the film being more readily perceived as Art. I was recently told the Roy Lichtenstein Three Landscapes (1970-71) installation at the Whitney Museum in New York was wearing out the 1:00min long 35mm loops daily. Eventually the museum converted to digital for the remainder of the installation. (http://whitney.org/ Exhibitions/RoyLichtenstein) While the work was fundamentally different, the sound of the three film projectors lost to the barely perceptible whir of the LCD projectors, the images could be said to haver maintained scale and the aura of the Art--if we grant the orig. 35mm prints that aura. Damon. On Mar 5, 2012, at 6:54 PM, David Tetzlaff wrote: Marilynn, implicitly if not explicitly, poses the question: How is it that filmmakers are not considered 'artists' within the 'art world'? To FRAMEWORKers, that question is surely rhetorical. Of course, filmmakers are artists, and it's simply silly for anyone to draw the sorts of distinctions for which Marilyn faults Balsom. But the art world DOES draw this distinction, and it's worth asking why. The history of artists (i.e. painters and sculptors) A very important point slips by in the parentheses; it's not just filmmakers who are 'not artists.' Poets, novelists, composers, musicians, dancers, choreographers, playwrights, stage-directors etc. etc. Only painters and sculptors and the like really count. So, what is the operating definition here? I submit it is this: An artist is a person who makes 'art.' 'Art' is a unique physical object that has commodity status. It can be sold, acquired, possessed, collected and accrue economic value in the process of exchange. Without those properties, creative work has no function within the instrumentalities of the art world: you can't do with it the things that art-world people do. So it's 'not art.' An 'art work' has to have a provenance, and it's history and value as an object becomes tied to the history of it's author. 'Artists' are important in the art world because their imprimatuer affects the commodity status of their work. As such a mediocre film by a painter is more worthy of attention than a great film by a filmmaker, because the painter has an established commodity cache. I feel kind of gob-smacked that so many people seem not to 'get' the basic political economy of art -- or maybe it's an aesthetic economy, but anyway it's some kind of economy -- since Benjamin and Lukacs have laid it out so clearly. Curators still don't what to do with
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
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 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
Well, yes. That is, I think we really do all 'get' the basic political economy of art, as David put it, and as you reenforce here. But Erika Balsom's essay was about the increasing integration of these two worlds that you describe -- 'Art' and film. It was, in part, about the current interest of the museum world in all things cinematic. And so given that this interest currently exists, the question becomes what to do with it, and how to ensure that works in film -- from all artists working with it -- are equally valued and given equal respect regarding their presentation. While the major museums of the world are certainly exhibiting works that have commercial value on the art market, they are also often government supported, as well as privately supported, cultural institutions charged with preserving, curating and exhibiting cultural history. Certainly they do like to own objects. And some do buy film prints, and have for quite awhile. But film prints, of course, wear out. So some filmmakers have turned to selling limited-edition internegatives of their films, giving the museums the means by which they can make future prints as needed, something which at least some museums are pursuing. But there is still the necessity of advocating for how best to exhibit these works. I personally feel that a museum or art gallery should strive to show work in its original format, with careful attention to the viewing environment, the details of which depend, in part, on the particular work in question. . . . But none of this, as far as I can see, should in any way prevent a continued, wider distribution of the works in digital reproduction. I can't speak to the Lichtenstein work you refer to because I don't know it, but certainly different works will require different solutions. Marilyn On 5-Mar-12, at 6:37 PM, Damon wrote: I am in very deeply in agreement with both the frustration and the appraisals. I'll start by saying that Stan Brakhage is an Artist working in the medium of film. What I would observe in answer to this dilemma, in total agreement with David, is so simple and straight-forward that it seems ludicrous: paintings, drawings, sculpture are things that get collected first and foremost for their unique, one-of-a-kind nature. But also as within the continuum of the visual tradition associated with other ritually-based institutions (Monarchy and Clergy). Graphic arts, engravings and lithographs, were always cheaper reproductions without the auratic cache of original works of art. The introduction of photography and cinema only complicated this formula in favor of the Art, not of the film. Hollywood's position in the culture industry only furthers the problems. Now to back away from the original/copy issue, the next layer of the onion tends to be about the Art being placed into museum collections and finding its audiences through exhibitions, while the films are placed into archives and given screenings to attract their audiences. The goal of the Art is to be collected while the film operates at the other end of continuum seeking screenings. And the museum collection is conceived as a cultural history which needs to be preserved, while an archive maintains holdings awaiting future uses, but not fully integrated into an existing cultural history. I think to compare the operations of FMC, Canyon, etc. with the Castelli/Sonnabend project in the mid-1970s is instructive. Castelli/Sonnabend sought to place works into collections, although it was also willing to facilitate screenings, and they were about producing symbolic value for the work, while it seems that the coops have served many functions, but the production of symbolic value falls way down the list. In the spirit of this question, I've wondered how the elements of this debate, and the other film/digital debates, might change if we re-conceived of the frame in terms of projection versus monitors? This might allow a middle position recognizing the material need to preserve a print, while also seeking a manner to exhibit a film/ projection outside the cinema screening format, and to be placed into an on-going presentation within the gallery space--possibly resulting in the film being more readily perceived as Art. I was recently told the Roy Lichtenstein Three Landscapes (1970-71) installation at the Whitney Museum in New York was wearing out the 1:00min long 35mm loops daily. Eventually the museum converted to digital for the remainder of the installation. (http://whitney.org/Exhibitions/RoyLichtenstein ) While the work was fundamentally different, the sound of the three film projectors lost to the barely perceptible whir of the LCD projectors, the images could be said to haver maintained scale and the aura of the Art--if we grant the orig. 35mm prints that aura. Damon. On Mar 5,
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
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 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
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. Yes, that was a dumb, cynical remark I made. But I do have a genuine question as to what were the circumstances that allowed those artists to achieve their special status in the art world presenting film in a gallery setting? I'm mainly familiar with Stan Douglas's work of the past decade which includes film photography (which have sometimes been photos related to a film), so he's got the art school and artist from another field thing in his support but what of Tacita Dean? I havn't seen her work but from my quick study online (ok just wikipedia) she seems to be a filmmaker who happened to be associated with a group of traditional artists who got some notoriety in the late 80s. Clearly she's had a great career, but would the galleries have called if she didn't have famous friends? ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
Awhile back, Chuck Kleinhans posted a link to an essay by Erika Balsom, about the place of experimental cinema within the museum/art world context, which I did find interesting and wanted to make some response to. Sorry for the length. I assume all uninterested can just delete now! Marilyn Brakhage A Response to: “Brakhage’s sour grapes, or notes on experimental cinema in the art world.” Erika Balsom’s essay, her “notes on experimental cinema in the art world,” explores the place of what she calls “experimental film” within a museum context, and how to successfully integrate this body of work into the institutions of the art world. This is a really important issue for the future of film. And she both raises important questions and arrives at some interesting and valuable conclusions. However, I think she also bases her understanding of the historical situation on some questionable premises. Her essay itself reveals (to me) some obvious contradictions in her argument about the how and why of the historical exclusion of “experimental film” from the art world establishment (and its sometimes half-hearted inclusion now), even while coming to some astute assessments of the current situation. She does insist upon maintaining, from beginning to end, the questionable terminology that maintains the false distinction of “experimental cinema” and “artists’ cinema.” I know, of course, what she is referring to, historically. But maintaining this vocabulary becomes problematic. “Artists’ cinema” seems still to be understood by her as cinema made by people who are artists in other media, and “experimental filmmakers” are (apparently) assumed not to be “artists.” That is to say, she never really questions the validity of the terminology. And as she uses Stan Brakhage as a prime example of the so-called experimental filmmaker’s “hostility” towards the art world, I feel it necessary to point out that 1) Stan never considered himself an “experimental” filmmaker, 2) Stan absolutely and without question considered himself an artist, 3) he did not want his films reserved for “a closed and impenetrable community,” he wanted them to be seen by everyone, and 4) the hyperbolic Brakhage quotations she references should be understood in a larger context of sometimes conflicting thoughts, emotions and issues – which I think she does somewhat misrepresent. The history of artists (i.e. painters and sculptors) who made forays into filmmaking is a problematic one – not so much in the early decades of the 20th century, and not so much now, perhaps, but in the decades in between. Perhaps it was really those artists from other media who were often “experimenting” with film. (It is more RARE than not, I think, for an artist who excels in one medium to also excel in another.) So some very great painters, so I’ve heard, made some rather bad – or, at least, not very interesting -- films. But good, bad, or indifferent -- it was their films that would be accepted by the art establishment. (I can remember, when studying Art History in the 80s, professors who would tell students it was only okay to write about film if one wrote about “a film made by an artist” -- meaning a painter or sculptor, for example. They would never say that you could only write about a sculpture made by a painter! But film, as a single medium of choice, was not a recognized art form by the academy. Someone who ONLY made films could not possibly be a true artist, in this view.) Brakhage’s warnings to Sharits (and others) about the supposed “poison” of the museum/art world may have been, in part, a reaction to these exclusionary attitudes of the “art world,” and to the dubious choices that were being made by the establishment in regard to film; they also would have been due, in part, yes, to a fear of loss of ‘life,’ as it were, from official enshrinement, perhaps; and probably also due to his fear of fellow filmmaker-artists being threatened with a loss of integrity, of their not being true to the art of film (the dangers of fame and money and institutional pressures, etc.), as he frequently witnessed the perhaps understandable desire of many to ‘escape’ from the hardships of being an independent filmmaker and to find a more successful alternative. He likewise warned against the ‘evils’ of Hollywood. But Stan didn’t really hate museums and art galleries; he did not engage in “totalizing rejection” of the art world, as she puts it. He certainly went to museums and art galleries whenever he could. And he considered himself a part of a long, visual art tradition. In fact, while there might be something to the avant- garde artists’ suspicions of the establishment – an honorable enough tradition – contributing to their insistent independence, it was certainly not a rejection of any true “art world.”
[Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
Frameworks readers might be interested in this article in a new journal from Intellect books: It's free as an electronic file; the single copy price is US $36.00 http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/journals/view-Journal,id=207/view,page=0?utm_source=MIRAJutm_campaign=MIRAJutm_medium=email Brakhage’s sour grapes, or notes on experimental cinema in the art world Erika Balsom Carleton University abstract This article examines the place of experimental cinema within the contemporary muse- um in order to challenge the commonly held assumption that it is somehow opposed to, or at least outside, the art world. Despite possessing a degree of material truth, the perceived separation between experimental cinema and the art world has led to an unfortunate lack of interrogation into the alliances and antagonisms that exist between them, partic- ularly as they have shifted over time. This article insists on the historicity of such relation- ships and traces how they have changed from the 1970s to a contemporary moment that sees experimental cinema in a closer relationship to the art world than ever before. The integration of experimental film into the museum is a key feature of the preoccupation with all things cinematic that has marked the art of the past two decades, prompting new questions as to the place of experimental film amongst the mediums of art practice. This article assesses not the distance so often thought to exist, but rather the proximity between experimental cinema and the art world in our moment. Chuck Kleinhans inline: page1image13984.png___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
Thursday, February 23, 2012, 7:39:39 AM, one wrote: Frameworks readers might be interested in this article in a new journal from Intellect books: It's free as an electronic file; the single copy price is US $36.00 Strikingly relevant to one point in a recent discussion, isn't it? [saved for weekend reading] Thanks, Chuck. -- \ Jim Flannery j...@newgrangemedia.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks