[Frameworks] job at LUX - Collection Manager
Hello ! LUX is seeking a new Collection Manager. Deadline for applications is this Friday 20th March ! You can find the job description and application form here : http://lux.org.uk/whats-on/lux-news/lux-collection-manager -- LUX COLLECTION MANAGER LUX is seeking an outstanding new Collections Manager to support and develop the LUX Collection, Europe’s largest collection of artists’ moving image works. WAGE: c£25,000 pa (pro rata 0.8) plus 5% pension contribution WORKING HOURS: Part time (4 days a week). 10am-6pm with 1 hour lunchbreak. evening and weekend work will be required, with time off in lieu. HOLIDAYS: 25 days per year pro-rata (5 compulsory days (pro rata) must be taken during the office closure at Christmas) with an increase of 1 day per year worked up to a maximum of 30 days. CONTRACT: Permanent (after 6 month probation) RESPONSIBLE TO: Directors RESPONSIBILITIES To manage the care, development and access to the LUX collection of film and video and provide collection support to the LUX Distribution department and LUX public programme. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The above position is offered on a permanent contract subject to the completion of a satis- factory probationary period. The above details and the job description for the position of Collections Manager are a guide to the nature of the work required. They are not wholly comprehensive or restrictive and do not form part of the contract of employment. DUTIES • Manage the effective acquisition of new works in the LUX collection including but not limited to liaison with artists and their representatives, issuing of contracts, acquisition, encoding and cataloging of new materials. • Negotiate and administer new acquisitions for the LUX Shop in consultation with the Finance Manager. • Report to the LUX board of trustees and LUX funders and stakeholders when required • Develop and manage strategies for improving public and professional access to the LUX collection including but not limited to improved onsite viewing, streaming on the LUX website, professional viewing. • Maintain, manage and improve LUX edit suite and technical facilities. • Maintain, manage and improve the LUX archive store. • Manage and oversee annual collection audit. • Develop proactive strategy for the management of the LUX collection including digitisation and restoration programmes. • Liaise and advise LUX artists on the care and management of their work and proactively work with them to source improved versions and remastering existing works. • Oversee, manage and develop the LUX master collection and oversee transfers to and from stores. • Oversee the printing and quality control of film exhibition materials for LUX distribution, liaising with relevant labs, artists and exhibitors. • Oversee telecine and scanning of works with external facilities houses. • Manage technical production aspects of LUX publications and online content. • Maintain and develop the LUX filemaker databases, including strategy for regular back up and maintenance with relevant freelancers. • Develop and manage monitoring and backup strategy for LUX collection files. • Provide advice and technical support to the LUX Distribution department. • Provide advice and technical support to the LUX public programme. • Develop regular restoration projects in collaboration with the LUX Directors. • Proactively represent LUX at relevant forums and events particularly around archiving and collection care on a national and international level. • Assist with the collection of LUX evaluation data. • Any other duties as reasonably requested. • Follow company health and safety procedure at all times. ESSENTIAL PERSON SPECIFICATION You must fulfil all these criteria to be considered for the position: Educated to BA level in a relevant subject area or equivalent professional experience. Demonstrable knowledge of and interest in artists’ moving image practice and good understanding of contemporary visual arts context in which LUX works. Experience of working with moving image collections or archives. Knowledge of and engagement with current issues in moving image archiving and preservation. Working experience with moving image technologies, both analogue and digital and commitment to ongoing skills development. Knowledge of online streaming and delivery technologies. Experience of working with artists. Excellent written and verbal communication skills. Highly motivated creative thinker. Mac-based computer literacy and competency. Experience of working with Filemaker Pro database software. Well-organised with good attention to detail. Proven ability to work under pressure. Ability to work effectively as part of a team. Punctual, well-organised and self-motivated. Ability to speak and represent LUX in public. Good understanding of equal opportunities. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm blowup?
Is he able to do a soundtrack on 35 as well, or just image blow ups? Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. Original Message From: lina.ro...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 13:04 To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com; Experimental Film Discussion List Reply To: Experimental Film Discussion List Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm blowup? Yes, John is great and amazing to work with as he is a fellow filmmaker. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network. Original Message From: direc...@lift.on.ca Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:18 AM To: Experimental Film Discussion List Reply To: Experimental Film Discussion List Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm blowup? Hi Mark, John's done two films for me (from super 8, regular 8 and 16mm to 35mm) and has done excellent work. He's also done Lina Rodriguez's super 8 to 35mmm blow-ups that you might have seen at views a few years ago. best Chris Thanks Roger, just emailed John to ask him! And still happy to get other suggestions if anyone has them! Thanks, Mark On Mar 14, 2015, at 5:55 PM, Roger D. Wilson rogerdwil...@sympatico.ca wrote: Not sure where you are located but I think John Kneller in Toronto still does blow ups but unfortunately I do not have his contact information anylonger but you might be able to get it through LIFT in Toronto. www.lift.ca Sent from Outlook On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:50 PM -0700, mrktosc mrkt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all - Is anyplace/anyone doing optical (not using digital) blowups from super 8 (pos) directly to 35mm (neg)? Thanks, Mark ___ 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 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Markopoulos in Basel
Apologies that in the previous announcement I failed to mention the inclusion TWICE A MAN in this programme :- Thursday 23 April 2015, at 6:30pm – Basel Stadtkino NEW YORK / EARLY FILMS Gregory J. Markopoulos, Ming Green, 1966, 7 min Lecture: P. Adams Sitney Gregory J. Markopoulos, Twice a Man, 1963, 46 min On 17 Mar 2015, at 12:00, frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com wrote: Thursday 23 April 2015, at 6:30pm – Basel Stadtkino NEW YORK / EARLY FILMS Gregory J. Markopoulos, Ming Green, 1966, 7 min Lecture: P. Adams Sitney ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup
Hi Chris, I'm glad you asked, as it's a subject I feel fairly passionately about. I'll first just clarify that the super 8 to 35mm blowup I'm seeking is purely for a project of my own which has to do with the large stretch between the two formats (i.e. it's a film which has specifically to do with the extra large blowup). As soon as I have the details hammered out on that, I'd be happy to say more about it... As for blowups in general, though - since it's no longer possible to do run-of-the-mill contact printing in 8mm or super 8, and since there's already a decades-long tradition of blowups of 8 to 16, I think it's a less problematic way to make smaller gauges viewable on film, when duplication is necessary. It's still a translation, though. Some filmmakers shot super 8 with the express intention of blowing up (as with some of Brakhage's films, James Otis's films, and many others), some shot and printed super 8 with only that intention, no blowup in mind, but then decided later on to blow up to 16 for whatever reasons (usually a matter of making the work more accessible, preserving it, etc.) Blowing up 16mm to 35mm on the other hand has nearly always seemed a really problematic step to me (unless of course the artist has that specifically in mind). From a preservation standpoint, it can cost twice or even 3-4 times as much as doing the work in 16mm, it's inherently changing the nature of the film in terms of scale, grain structure, etc., and it makes, I think, a somewhat elitist political statement that only venues capable of showing 35mm will now have access to that film. I've been saying (here and there, to whomever would let me blather about it) for a dozen years that, on top of these aesthetic/political concerns, the preservation question of 35mm being somehow more archival or likely to have increased longevity over 16mm was almost certainly going to be totally false. In terms of archival stability, the stocks in 16 and 35 are the same in these purposes, and would have the same chemical longevity, more or less. And preserving in a gauge not the film's own changes its essential nature, so that very aspect of its identity (its gauge) is lost in the preservation. Plus I've never followed the logic that primarily commercial archiving entities make, that bigger/sharper/faster/etc. is better, because it's clearly bullshit. What's better is preserving a film as unfussily in its original format as is possible. And as for 35 outlasting 16, we've seen where that's gone - only a handful of devoted cinephiliac venues and museums can handle 35mm now, and a lot of those handle 16mm too. PLUS, any number of classrooms, galleries, microcinemas, backyards, whatever, can and do show 16mm on any number of projectors kicking around out there. The 35mm projection knowledge base (especially regarding maintenance) is supremely limited, whereas a ton more folks have figured out how to run and even maintain, to some degree, the 16mm projectors they have. Anyway, I'm ranting. But bottom line, my feeling is to preserve 16mm as 16mm as long as it's possible! Mark Toscano On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:36 AM, direc...@lift.on.ca wrote: Mark, Since we're on the subject, is there a reason you're going to 35mm rather than 16mm? Although 35mm is definitely more robust and beautiful (with a great soundtrack potential), my sense now is that a 16mm print might have longer life than a 35mm print. Now that so many places have taken out their 35mm projectors, its less of a presentation medium for many places. 16mm, on the other hand, is still very portable, so you can always bring the projector in if there's interest. My 35mm prints sit on the shelf. My 16mm prints occasionally get taken for a spin. Do you have a more positive take on the future of 35mm vs 16mm? thanks Chris ___ 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] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup
And as for 35 outlasting 16, we've seen where that's gone - only a handful of devoted cinephiliac venues and museums can handle 35mm now, and a lot of those handle 16mm too. Thanks Mark. That's my feeling, too. Just wanted to make sure you didn't have some other observations that I was missing out on. Thanks for the developed explanation! best Chris ___ 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] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup (from Ross Lipman)
Hi Mark, Ross here (writing from Charlotte's account) - as always you make many excellent points! However I thought it important to write, because I fear that some of the opinions expressed here veer dangerously to thou shall not! which I'm sure is not your intent. I'll stay away from engaging in a point-by-point debate (especially as I agree with a lot of what you say), but will clarify my own take, stated simply: there are occasions when blow-up is desired, and others where it's not. the fun of course, is determining what those cases might be.. my (hopefully non-elitist) two cents. and good luck with your project! Ross www.corpusfluxus.org www.filmbysamuelbeckett.com From: Mark Toscano mrkt...@gmail.com Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:21 AM To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup Hi Chris, I'm glad you asked, as it's a subject I feel fairly passionately about. I'll first just clarify that the super 8 to 35mm blowup I'm seeking is purely for a project of my own which has to do with the large stretch between the two formats (i.e. it's a film which has specifically to do with the extra large blowup). As soon as I have the details hammered out on that, I'd be happy to say more about it... As for blowups in general, though - since it's no longer possible to do run-of-the-mill contact printing in 8mm or super 8, and since there's already a decades-long tradition of blowups of 8 to 16, I think it's a less problematic way to make smaller gauges viewable on film, when duplication is necessary. It's still a translation, though. Some filmmakers shot super 8 with the express intention of blowing up (as with some of Brakhage's films, James Otis's films, and many others), some shot and printed super 8 with only that intention, no blowup in mind, but then decided later on to blow up to 16 for whatever reasons (usually a matter of making the work more accessible, preserving it, etc.) Blowing up 16mm to 35mm on the other hand has nearly always seemed a really problematic step to me (unless of course the artist has that specifically in mind). From a preservation standpoint, it can cost twice or even 3-4 times as much as doing the work in 16mm, it's inherently changing the nature of the film in terms of scale, grain structure, etc., and it makes, I think, a somewhat elitist political statement that only venues capable of showing 35mm will now have access to that film. I've been saying (here and there, to whomever would let me blather about it) for a dozen years that, on top of these aesthetic/political concerns, the preservation question of 35mm being somehow more archival or likely to have increased longevity over 16mm was almost certainly going to be totally false. In terms of archival stability, the stocks in 16 and 35 are the same in these purposes, and would have the same chemical longevity, more or less. And preserving in a gauge not the film's own changes its essential nature, so that very aspect of its identity (its gauge) is lost in the preservation. Plus I've never followed the logic that primarily commercial archiving entities make, that bigger/sharper/faster/etc. is better, because it's clearly bullshit. What's better is preserving a film as unfussily in its original format as is possible. And as for 35 outlasting 16, we've seen where that's gone - only a handful of devoted cinephiliac venues and museums can handle 35mm now, and a lot of those handle 16mm too. PLUS, any number of classrooms, galleries, microcinemas, backyards, whatever, can and do show 16mm on any number of projectors kicking around out there. The 35mm projection knowledge base (especially regarding maintenance) is supremely limited, whereas a ton more folks have figured out how to run and even maintain, to some degree, the 16mm projectors they have. Anyway, I'm ranting. But bottom line, my feeling is to preserve 16mm as 16mm as long as it's possible! Mark Toscano On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:36 AM, direc...@lift.on.ca wrote: Mark, Since we're on the subject, is there a reason you're going to 35mm rather than 16mm? Although 35mm is definitely more robust and beautiful (with a great soundtrack potential), my sense now is that a 16mm print might have longer life than a 35mm print. Now that so many places have taken out their 35mm projectors, its less of a presentation medium for many places. 16mm, on the other hand, is still very portable, so you can always bring the projector in if there's interest. My 35mm prints sit on the shelf. My 16mm prints occasionally get taken for a spin. Do you have a more positive take on the future of 35mm vs 16mm? thanks Chris ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
