Re: [Frameworks] experimental film in the art world
Right, I see that point. btw, One only has to read Stan's chapter on Bruce to get an idea of the price he paid for that art world notoriety and the consequences on his health! In any case, the L.A. museum for that retrospective had special darkened rooms built in the gallery where you could sit down and watch the films. There was a nice separation in those spaces from any other distractions. The whole retrospective had a tone of high respect for Bruce and all his work, it was one of the best shows I had seen that (at least) included film presentations. The usual presentations of videos in museums have never had quite the same impact, maybe because other people sitting there watching are as if they were home watching tv. Are we talking of film shows within a museum's gallery space as opposed to museums which also have dedicated film theaters separate but on the premises, or even something like the juxtaposition of Pacific Film Archive with the Berkeley Museum? I am a bit out of touch, how many major museums in the country have such theaters with well maintained projection equipment? What is the current state of these museum film theaters generally? Myron Ort On Mar 4, 2012, at 11:30 PM, marilyn brakhage wrote: I didn't see that exhibition, unfortunately. But Bruce Conner also had a gallery/art world history and connections for his work in other media, aside from film. It's the people who are only filmmakers who sometimes have more of a struggle with getting their work shown as it should be. Marilyn On 4-Mar-12, at 6:31 PM, Myron Ort wrote: all I know is how impressed I was with the Bruce Conner retrospective in Los Angeles at MOCA a many few years ago. All of his modes of working were well presented. Bruce Conner! Myron Ort On Mar 4, 2012, at 6:19 PM, marilyn brakhage wrote: Thanks for the feedback. It would be interesting to hear more on the subject from people around at the time -- as well as the latest experiences other people are having. Marilyn On 4-Mar-12, at 2:45 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote: I thought Marilyn Brakhage's response to the Erika Balsom essay was outstanding, and I hope it will be reprinted in Moving Image Arts Journal so it circulates more directly where historians and scholars might find it in the future. Greybeards like me on the Frameworks listserv can easily add to the main points Marilyn makes about Stan Brakhage per se and about the commercial and gallery and museum art world of the time. I vividly remember a dinner with Stan Brakhage (and others) at the University of Oregon perhaps 20 years ago when he was screening some of his films. The discussion got into the matter of Turner's paintings and light, and Brakhage was quite passionate about which museums had which paintings and had displayed them to best advantage. The next morning I ran into him on the main campus quadrangle, camera in hand, filming what interested him, while he was waiting for the University Art Museum to open. Two points that others might be able to develop more in dialogue with Balsom's thesis: a. animation, particularly drawn animation, has always had a more ambiguous relation to the traditional format/materials art world, perhaps mostly because almost all its artists have drawing skills and craft, which is more easily understood. Most art schools (used to) have first year drawing course requirements. b. there was a discussion c. 1970, and I think in Canyon Cinemanews, about establishing the rare value of film and its collectability, by making things such as unique editions of films (such as S8mm copies that collectors could buy and presumably view at home) or by making single unique films which would then be sold to collectors or museums. Of course this was also part of an art world discussion/quandary at the time when another mass reproduceable art--photography--was entering the art market (and museum collections). Chuck Kleinhans ___ 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 ___ 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] experimental film in the art world
My understanding of this situation with Conner and the 2000 B.C. exhibit(s) (which I saw at the DeYoung Museum in San Francisco) is that Conner *insisted* that the film work be displayed in this way and was intimately involved in the design of all aspects of the exhibit. It was pretty common knowledge that Conner was extremely controlling of the way his work was exhibited and (I believe) he had actually nixed previous career retrospectives offered by museums when he felt the quality of display not up to his standards. I agree that this show really set the bar high for the gallery exhibition of film and I credit Bruce Conner, in his unique Bruce Conner-ness, for forcing it to happen. Could other artists do this? Do they have his juice, his mojo? It would be nice if they would try, to try and force the issue, but I get the sense that to many it's generally just enough to get in the door, you know? Steve Polta --- On Sun, 3/4/12, marilyn brakhage v...@shaw.ca wrote: From: marilyn brakhage v...@shaw.ca Subject: Re: [Frameworks] experimental film in the art world To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Date: Sunday, March 4, 2012, 11:30 PM I didn't see that exhibition, unfortunately. But Bruce Conner also had a gallery/art world history and connections for his work in other media, aside from film. It's the people who are only filmmakers who sometimes have more of a struggle with getting their work shown as it should be. Marilyn On 4-Mar-12, at 6:31 PM, Myron Ort wrote: all I know is how impressed I was with the Bruce Conner retrospective in Los Angeles at MOCA a many few years ago. All of his modes of working were well presented.Bruce Conner! Myron Ort On Mar 4, 2012, at 6:19 PM, marilyn brakhage wrote: Thanks for the feedback. It would be interesting to hear more on the subject from people around at the time -- as well as the latest experiences other people are having. Marilyn On 4-Mar-12, at 2:45 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote: I thought Marilyn Brakhage's response to the Erika Balsom essay was outstanding, and I hope it will be reprinted in Moving Image Arts Journal so it circulates more directly where historians and scholars might find it in the future. Greybeards like me on the Frameworks listserv can easily add to the main points Marilyn makes about Stan Brakhage per se and about the commercial and gallery and museum art world of the time. I vividly remember a dinner with Stan Brakhage (and others) at the University of Oregon perhaps 20 years ago when he was screening some of his films. The discussion got into the matter of Turner's paintings and light, and Brakhage was quite passionate about which museums had which paintings and had displayed them to best advantage. The next morning I ran into him on the main campus quadrangle, camera in hand, filming what interested him, while he was waiting for the University Art Museum to open. Two points that others might be able to develop more in dialogue with Balsom's thesis: a. animation, particularly drawn animation, has always had a more ambiguous relation to the traditional format/materials art world, perhaps mostly because almost all its artists have drawing skills and craft, which is more easily understood. Most art schools (used to) have first year drawing course requirements. b. there was a discussion c. 1970, and I think in Canyon Cinemanews, about establishing the rare value of film and its collectability, by making things such as unique editions of films (such as S8mm copies that collectors could buy and presumably view at home) or by making single unique films which would then be sold to collectors or museums. Of course this was also part of an art world discussion/quandary at the time when another mass reproduceable art--photography--was entering the art market (and museum collections). Chuck Kleinhans ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___FrameWorks mailing listFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comhttps://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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] experimental film in the art world
And his estate keeps up those standards for the presentation of his work in galleries and museums. More power to them. Most galleries museums don¹t give a damn, white walls, uncomfortable seats, sound bleed, etc. Would they show paintings in rooms with no lights? Well, anyway, an old situation, always fresh. On 3/5/12 9:44 AM, Steve Polta stevepo...@yahoo.com wrote: My understanding of this situation with Conner and the 2000 B.C. exhibit(s) (which I saw at the DeYoung Museum in San Francisco) is that Conner *insisted* that the film work be displayed in this way and was intimately involved in the design of all aspects of the exhibit. It was pretty common knowledge that Conner was extremely controlling of the way his work was exhibited and (I believe) he had actually nixed previous career retrospectives offered by museums when he felt the quality of display not up to his standards. I agree that this show really set the bar high for the gallery exhibition of film and I credit Bruce Conner, in his unique Bruce Conner-ness, for forcing it to happen. Could other artists do this? Do they have his juice, his mojo? It would be nice if they would try, to try and force the issue, but I get the sense that to many it's generally just enough to get in the door, you know? Steve Polta --- On Sun, 3/4/12, marilyn brakhage v...@shaw.ca wrote: From: marilyn brakhage v...@shaw.ca Subject: Re: [Frameworks] experimental film in the art world To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Date: Sunday, March 4, 2012, 11:30 PM I didn't see that exhibition, unfortunately. But Bruce Conner also had a gallery/art world history and connections for his work in other media, aside from film. It's the people who are only filmmakers who sometimes have more of a struggle with getting their work shown as it should be. Marilyn On 4-Mar-12, at 6:31 PM, Myron Ort wrote: all I know is how impressed I was with the Bruce Conner retrospective in Los Angeles at MOCA a many few years ago. All of his modes of working were well presented.Bruce Conner! Myron Ort ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] digitizing 8mm and S8 mm
Congrats on the expanding business, Jeff! Your statements have been validated and represent my current methodology with both Super 8 and UltraPan8 film. I utilize the custom over-scanned services of engineer John Gledhill at bitworks.org here in Toronto and the amount of information extracted from the typical frame is inspiring. Any updates on your efforts regarding a more affordable desktop version of the Kinetta? NIcholas On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Jeff Kreines jeffkrei...@mindspring.com wrote: Forgive me for reposting something from 3 months ago, but I think it is important to think about scanning resolution vs. output resolution. Small formats actually benefit more than formats like 35mm from high resolution scanning, because they have a much higher amount of grain in a frame, and if that grain isn't resolved, it looks quite mushy. Remember, grain is the soul of the emulsion. A couple of recent films with a large amount of Super-8 footage that are headed for (probably digital) theatrical releases had their S8 footage scanned on a Kinetta Archival Scanner. Ricky on Leacock was scanned at As'Image in Paris, and Our Nixon will be scanned this month at the Nixon Library in glorious Yorba Linda, California. These are all being scanned at 12-bit, 3296 x 2472 resolution (or overscanned inside of that res). The scanner has the ability to capture the full dynamic range of reversal original or prints, as well as negative stock. It can handle extremely damaged film without having to repair perfs before scanning. No sprockets, and the ability to frame the image as desired, like an optical printer. It also has an extremely bright but cool light source that is great for dealing with underexposed footage without adding any electronic noise. While many of these scanners are in archives and not available for public use, there are a few that are available to anyone. One is at As'Image in Paris (thanks, Pip, for that!), Shai Drori in Israel is getting his shipped this week, and VTC in San Francisco is getting their machine this month. There will also be a machine available for rent in Boston in a few weeks. There is a big difference between scanners, telecines, and projector-based film chains. Scanners capture data at high bit-depth and resolution, and the files are usable for anything from 4K digital cinema masters to web videos (and everything else in between. Telecines are video-centric, and the files are captured to tape or disk in SD or HD video formats. This means silent footage has either repeated or blended frames when converted to 23.976 or 25 or 29.97 fps. Film chains are typically a video camera and projector wedded in an unholy alliance. OK, the old note, with links to frames at various resolutions, follows. Jeff Kreines Kinetta jeff@kinetta Disclaimer: I designed and build Kinetta scanners. There is a common belief -- which, like a lot of common wisdom should be looked at skeptically -- that small format film lacks enough useful information to require scanning at resolutions greater than pillarboxed HD (1080 x 1440) or cropped HD (1080 x 1920). Some feel that for Super-8 and 8mm, NTSC, PAL, and 720P are, in the words of an engineer I know, good enough. But I don't think anyone really tested this properly -- they just said what seemed logical enough to them. It's fine to say that looks pretty good at 1080 x 1440 but those who say this probably did not try scanning the same film at higher resolutions to see if there was an appreciable difference. I did some simple tests, and honestly was quite surprised at the results. Even when the final release format is HD or less, the advantages of high resolution scans are obvious. I put together a little PDF you can download, with both Super-8 and grainy 16mm samples scanned at different resolutions. It was written in response to a report by the Swiss group Memoriav, which was doing tests of small format (for them this includes 16mm) scanning. Here's a link: http://db.tt/iriz5nyY Here are links to full-res TIFFs of the files used -- zoom in on them and see what you are losing with lower resolution scans. Note that the files are mostly over 20MB each, so don't try this on your cell phone. http://db.tt/8cw0YUXU http://db.tt/xizfMgLq http://db.tt/VvwuPSog http://db.tt/LR0Phcy2 http://db.tt/BofN5ls8 http://db.tt/aPXrsxAf http://db.tt/JSC7Vf2C http://db.tt/SGYbJiWb http://db.tt/X1flduqJ Let me know what you think. Jeff Kreines ___ 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] suggestions for optical printing?
Does anyone working on a JK optical printer have suggestions on 16 mm (color/ BW) film stock and perhaps filter pack to use? Just looking for a place to start doing my own tests. Also, do you know what film lab that is friendly to processing shorter pieces of film, etc.. Any help would be really appreciated! Thank you, Marcelle Please send any response to: marcellepe...@yahoo.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Lomo UPB-1A pouring issues Lomo UPB-1A pouring issues
Christine, this is exactly how you are supposed to use it. One trick I can add is to place the hose downwards instead of facing up - this way when you remove it you do not risk spilling any in case the tank is full, it also reduces the chance of leaks because part of the tube has to necessarily be above the tank level in order to then come back down where it is secured. -Pip Chodorov At 14:14 -0500 5/03/12, Christine Lucy Latimer wrote: Kevin, Perhaps I have been using my lomo tank outside of its intended purpose all of this time...but I have always poured my chemistry directly into the centre opening at the top of the tank (where the agitation assembly is), similar to the pouring opening at the top of a 35mm Ansco processing tank. I use the hose for draining only. I wrap the hose along the side of tank with the end pointing upwards and secured with tape the rest of the time (to prevent leaks during processing). ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimental film in the art world
I don't know how many museums have dedicated theatres with well maintained projection equipment. That would be good to try to find out. But for gallery inclusion, it sounds as if this Conner exhibition sets a good standard that at least gives others some reference then, as to how it should be done. It is a struggle though, to get these things to happen -- as Steve and Adam also point out. It still takes a Bruce Conner apparently. Marilyn On 5-Mar-12, at 9:29 AM, Myron Ort wrote: Right, I see that point. btw, One only has to read Stan's chapter on Bruce to get an idea of the price he paid for that art world notoriety and the consequences on his health! In any case, the L.A. museum for that retrospective had special darkened rooms built in the gallery where you could sit down and watch the films. There was a nice separation in those spaces from any other distractions. The whole retrospective had a tone of high respect for Bruce and all his work, it was one of the best shows I had seen that (at least) included film presentations. The usual presentations of videos in museums have never had quite the same impact, maybe because other people sitting there watching are as if they were home watching tv. Are we talking of film shows within a museum's gallery space as opposed to museums which also have dedicated film theaters separate but on the premises, or even something like the juxtaposition of Pacific Film Archive with the Berkeley Museum? I am a bit out of touch, how many major museums in the country have such theaters with well maintained projection equipment? What is the current state of these museum film theaters generally? Myron Ort On Mar 4, 2012, at 11:30 PM, marilyn brakhage wrote: I didn't see that exhibition, unfortunately. But Bruce Conner also had a gallery/art world history and connections for his work in other media, aside from film. It's the people who are only filmmakers who sometimes have more of a struggle with getting their work shown as it should be. Marilyn On 4-Mar-12, at 6:31 PM, Myron Ort wrote: all I know is how impressed I was with the Bruce Conner retrospective in Los Angeles at MOCA a many few years ago. All of his modes of working were well presented. Bruce Conner! Myron Ort On Mar 4, 2012, at 6:19 PM, marilyn brakhage wrote: Thanks for the feedback. It would be interesting to hear more on the subject from people around at the time -- as well as the latest experiences other people are having. Marilyn On 4-Mar-12, at 2:45 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote: I thought Marilyn Brakhage's response to the Erika Balsom essay was outstanding, and I hope it will be reprinted in Moving Image Arts Journal so it circulates more directly where historians and scholars might find it in the future. Greybeards like me on the Frameworks listserv can easily add to the main points Marilyn makes about Stan Brakhage per se and about the commercial and gallery and museum art world of the time. I vividly remember a dinner with Stan Brakhage (and others) at the University of Oregon perhaps 20 years ago when he was screening some of his films. The discussion got into the matter of Turner's paintings and light, and Brakhage was quite passionate about which museums had which paintings and had displayed them to best advantage. The next morning I ran into him on the main campus quadrangle, camera in hand, filming what interested him, while he was waiting for the University Art Museum to open. Two points that others might be able to develop more in dialogue with Balsom's thesis: a. animation, particularly drawn animation, has always had a more ambiguous relation to the traditional format/materials art world, perhaps mostly because almost all its artists have drawing skills and craft, which is more easily understood. Most art schools (used to) have first year drawing course requirements. b. there was a discussion c. 1970, and I think in Canyon Cinemanews, about establishing the rare value of film and its collectability, by making things such as unique editions of films (such as S8mm copies that collectors could buy and presumably view at home) or by making single unique films which would then be sold to collectors or museums. Of course this was also part of an art world discussion/quandary at the time when another mass reproduceable art--photography--was entering the art market (and museum collections). Chuck Kleinhans ___ 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
[Frameworks] CALLING ALL WOMEN ARTISTS
CALLING ALL WOMEN ARTISTS- GAZE, a new monthly film series dedicated to screening independent film and video made by women, wants your film videos!We accept all formats, all lengths, all subject matter, and there are no submission fees. Programs are curated from newly and/or previously submitted material. Further info, guidelines, and how to submit is on our site. http://gazefilmseries.wordpress.com Again, there are no submission fees so, feel free to submit as much work as you'd like. Work will be programmed by a committee of women cineastes. If you have any questions, contact us at g...@atasite.org___ 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] experimental film in the art world
Myron asked, "how many major museums in the country have such theaters with well maintained projection equipment?"A number still exist. We present programs at museum auditoria, both in 35mm and 16mm (Fischinger and Belson, among other programs). Just in the last 2 months, at SF MoMA and at The National Gallery of Art, Washington DC (beautiful, large theater). Next, at LACMA (Fischinger and more, April 27).MoMA of course still has theatres and regular film screenings. I'm guessing Chicago must have something still, and Philadelphia. And the Walker? There's other auditoria and projection equipment in Washington DC at some of the Smithsonian museums which have screenings (Hirshhorn, etc). There's major museums with auditoria and equipment that don't present regular programming (Guggenheim NY, huge theatre), or that don't program much avant-garde (Getty).A number of smaller museums still have auditoria with film equipment - Hammer Museum, LA (in conjunction w UCLA Film TV Archive).MOCA LA has a nice theatre, but only 16mm, no 35mm.Portland Art Museum (unless that's changed?), and Cleveland.I'm sure there's many more in this category. But, we do receive an increasing amount of inquiries from museums requesting digital copies for screenings, as they can't screen film anymore. Some can still screen 35mm, but not 16mm. Cindy KeeferCenter for Visual Musicwww.centerforvisualmusic.orgreply to: cvmaccess (at) gmail.com ___ 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
