Re: [Frameworks] Articles/essays on the loop in film
Jen, It has been ages since I've seen a copy, but there was an exhibition catalog about the loop in artist's films in 2001-2002. It had many short essays, some focused upon the exhibited artists, and others on the loop as a concept, but none really longer than 5 pages (however the catalog was in a Vogue-like page layout so the 5 pages may be close to 10 pages if placed into a book). Each of the editors contributed a text. Here is the bibliography reference I have for it (and some of the details): Biesenbach, Klaus , Jennifer Allen, and Daniel Birnbaum, eds. Loop : Alles Auf Anfang. Munich: Kunsthalle der Hypo-Kulturstiftung, 2001. chiefly coloured ill. ; 31 cm. Texts in German and English Catalogue of an exhibition held at Kunsthalle der Hypo- Kulturstiftung, Munich, from Sept. 14 to Nov. 4, 2001 and at P.S.1/ MoMA, New York, from Dec. 9, 2001 to Jan. 27, 2002./ Magazine 03/01, Special issue--Editorial./ Loop - back to the beginning [is] an exhibition featuring the diverse work of 20 international artists who explore a strategy of repeated gesture, the loop.--Foreword./ Features the works of Canadian artists Rodney Graham, Stan Douglas./ Includes bibliographical references. Loop, back to the beginning.; Magazine 03/01. Boris Groys has also examined the loop as a formal structure, he curated an exhibition at Apex Art in New York during the winter of 2008, there is still a web page up with a link to the exhibition brochure: http://www.apexart.org/exhibitions/groys.php I think the found-footage videos he produced in conjunction with the exhibition were released by Hatje Cantz after the show moved to ZKM in Karlsruhe, Germany : http://www.hatjecantz.de/controller.php? cmd=detailtitzif=2337lang=en Sincerely, Damon Stanek On Jan 12, 2013, at 5:01 PM, Jen Proctor wrote: Hi everyone, Can anyone point me to any good writing on the notion of the loop in cinema (that is, the repetition of a strip of film over and over)? Of course, one of the ways cinema got its start was in showcasing simple looped images, but I'm particularly interested in its role in avant-garde film, expanded cinema, video art, etc. Articles about repetition as a technique would be of interest too, though those are a bit easier to come by. Thanks! Jen ___ 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] Film in the Cities/Filmmakers Filming monographs
Emily, I don't know the answer. I guessed Carolee Schneemann, but couldn't find any evidence to verify my this so I suspect I am wrong. I would suggest contacting the Walker Art Center LIbrary directly. Here is the URL for the archives: http://www.walkerart.org/archive/0/ AC83F142AA831F17616D.htm and the email for a contact is: jill.vet...@walkerart.org Good luck, Damon. On Jul 11, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Davis, Emily wrote: Hello, I’m trying compile a complete list of the Filmmakers Filming monographs that were published by Film in the Cities from 1979 – 1981. I am missing the 10th in the series; does anyone know who #10 was? Below is what I have so far. Any insight would be appreciated! Thanks, Emily Stan Brakhage By Marie Nesthus October 1979 1st in the series Ken Jacobs Interview by Lindley Hanlon June 10, June 12, 1979 November 1979 2nd in the series Bruce Baillie By Ernest Callenbach November 1979 3rd in the series Nelson/Wiley “To Tight Rope Walkers Everywhere: The collaborative Films of Robert Nelson and William T. Wiley” By J. Hoberman December 1979 4th in the series Kenneth Anger By Robert Haller February 1980 5th in the series Ernie Gehr By P. Adams Sitney March 1980 6th in the series Robert Breer By Sandy Moore April 1980 7th in the series Jonas Mekas By Judith E. Briggs with notes by Jonas Mekas May 1980 8th in the series Pat O’Neil By Grahame Weinbren C. Noll Brinckmann October 1980 9th in the series - 10th in the series Larry Jordan By P. Adams Sitney October 1980 11th in the series Yvonne Rainner By B. Ruby Rich January 1981 12th in the series Bruce Conner By Anthony Reveaux April 1981 13th in the series Paul Sharits By Stuart Liebman May 1981 14th in the series George Landow By P. Adams Sitney May 1981 15th in the series -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is confidential and may contain privileged or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this message in error, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, or using the information contained herein. Inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure shall not compromise or waive the confidentiality of this transmission or any applicable attorney- client privilege. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us at maild...@walkerart.org and delete this transmission from your computer. ___ 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] E-Flux contact info
Have you tried the suggested contact from the press release? For further information please contact mila(at)e-flux.com Overall, e-flux is a fairly small organization, and even if this is not the correct contact, they will probably be able to address or direct your question to the one of the other staff members. But because it is small, the responses do not always return promptly... (just my experience). Good Luck, Damon. On Apr 30, 2012, at 2:56 PM, LJ Frezza wrote: hello folks does anyone have contact info for people in charge of programming for e-flux? i wanted to get in contact with them regarding their recent adam curtis screening/lecture thanks a bunch -lj -- ljfre...@gmail.com / 904.762.8300 ___ 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] Any good cinema bookstores in NYC?
Film sections are shrinking in all of the city's bookstores, but so are the other sections. At this point, the largest film section would probably be The Strand (12th St. Broadway). DS On Apr 16, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Ryan Marino wrote: St. Mark's books has a good selection of film books. On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:46 PM, David Tetzlaff djte...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know of any cine-specialty bookstores in New York City? I do not know any specialty stores, but, of course, you'll want to check the relevant sections at The Strand. There might be some books at Mondo Kim's, and the clerks there would probably be able to (condescendingly) point you towards any other booksellers with significant cinema-related inventory. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- www.ryanmarino.com www.imminentfrequencies.com ___ 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] Architecture in Film
A number of artists who have made films about specific pieces of architecture and also architectural ruins come to mind: Mark Lewis has a number of examples (http://www.marklewisstudio.com/ films.htm) Jane and Louise Wilson (http://www.303gallery.com/artists/ jane_and_louise_wilson/index.php?exhid=76p=images) Tacita Dean (earlier works like Fernsehturm, Sound Mirrors and Bubble House all between approx. 1998-2001). Damon. On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:39 PM, lance w wrote: Hello, I'm looking for examples of architecture in film. Thinking about Alexander Kluge's Brutality in Stone (http://www.ubu.com/film/ kluge_brutality.html). Do you have suggestions? Thanks, Lance ___ 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
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
Re: [Frameworks] Andy Warhol's SLEEP / Providence, RI / Feb 18 / Magic Lantern + RK Projects
While this presentation of Sleep certainly differs from the original screenings of the film, it is also far from a Youtube hommage. Vexations played an important role in Warhol's conception of the film, and he took from Satie a working method making possible the editing of his short reels into a lengthy film. Sorry I don't have time at the moment to unpack this point as I'm running out the door, but here is a link to some supporting literature to this position: http://www.warholstars.org/news/johncage.html Damon S. On Feb 12, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Myron Ort wrote: So 18fps plus sound. Not so much an homage to Warhol as an homage to Youtube! LOL. At least with Youtube you can turn off the sound. No sets of ear plugs can do that as completely, and sometimes the bass from the speakers hits you in the gut anyway and creates a whole other unwanted experience even with earplugs. That is how I was forced to sit though the Sistiaga hand painted film with atrocious noise. Echh! One of the worst cinema experiences of my life. Myron Ort On Feb 12, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Josh Guilford wrote: R.K. Projects + Magic Lantern Cinema Present a very special screening of: SLEEP by Andy Warhol featuring John Giorno 5.5hr long-form cinema projected on 16mm film w/ a performance of Erik Satie's, Vexations (1893) by Sakiko Mori, Daryl Seaver and XSV @ 6:15pm Saturday February 18th from 6pm - 2am 40 Rice Street Providence 02907 Andy Warhol, Sleep, 1963, 16mm film, b/w, silent, 5 hours and 21 minutes @16fps ©2012 The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh, PA, a museum of Carnegie Institute. All rights reserved. Film still courtesy of The Andy Warhol Museum “What is sleep, after all, but the metabolic transformation of the entire experience of time, our nightly release from the clock’s prison…” - Stephen Koch Sleep harbors a potential to alter the temporal fabric of our world. What would it mean to live the time of sleep while awake, to collectively activate its other temporality in a pocket of space and sleep awake together? If sleeping together amounts to “sharing an inertia, an equal force that maintains the two bodies together,” then the stillness of sleep may paradoxically give way to a journey, with bodies “drifting like… narrow boats moving off to the same open sea, toward the same horizon always concealed afresh in mists…”1 Magic Lantern Cinema and RK Projects have collaborated to present an off-site screening of Andy Warhol’s 5.5hr anti-film – Sleep. The first film that Warhol made after purchasing a 16mm camera in 1963, Sleep began as an experiment to document an activity that the amphetamine-induced energy of the 1960s seemed to be rendering obsolete. Yet Warhol’s film is not simply a documentary, but an erotic milieu for ruminating the philosophical implications of time and repetition, as well as a physical meditation on the non- narrative materiality of film itself. Warhol completed the film after his experience attending John Cage’s 1963 performance of Erik Satie’s epically repetitive work for piano, Vexations, (1893) – a 52-beat segment played slowly and in succession 840 times. The repetitive structure of Vexations is apparent in Sleep as well: recorded as a series of long takes using 100 ft. magazines (approx. 3 mins) shot from multiple angles over a period of several weeks, the shots were then repeated through loop- printing and spliced together end-to-end, with emulsion and perforations left as-is. And though the entire film was shot at sound speed (24fps), it was meant to be projected at silent speed (16 or 18fps), causing movements to appear in an ethereal slow- motion. The result is a highly constructed piece of minimalist long-form cinema whose emphasis on time, materiality, repetition, and the quotidian has drawn comparisons to modernist painting while also earning Warhol a position as “the major precursor of structural film” and a 1964 Independent Film Award for “taking cinema back to its origins.”2 Sleep premiered in New York City’s Gramercy Arts Theater in 1963. But the film’s extreme stillness and duration have been said to promote a more casual and intermittent approach to spectatorship than that affiliated with theatrical exhibition, encouraging viewers to “chat during the screening, leave for a hamburger and return, [or] greet friends [while] the film serenely devolve[s] up there on the screen.”3 In an effort to cultivate such an experience and acknowledge Warhol’s diverse experiments with non-theatrical exhibition forms (from the Factory walls to live multimedia performances), this screening will be held in a vacant, slumbering warehouse at 40 Rice St., generously donated by The Armory Revival Co. in Providence, RI. To mark this significant event, there will also be a staging of the musical
Re: [Frameworks] {Disarmed} Re: Andy Warhol's SLEEP / Providence, RI / Feb 18 / Magic Lantern + RK Projects
Dear all, Well firstly, I apologize for posting a provocative, sketchy, response on the way out the door... Now having returned, I can take more time. Secondly, I was commenting predominantly on Myron Ort's comment: Not so much an homage to Warhol as an homage to Youtube! LOL, which seems to reduce the presentation wholly to the teenage homages of pop stars on Youtube that produce a music video created from photographs related to the song only by the presence of the 'artist', often wholly disjunct stylistically and temporally. All I wanted to say was Vexations does have a connection--in the temporal moment of Sleep and the stylistic shaping of duration. It is quite fair to point out that I missed you LOL, which I see now, and even quoted above. I'll confess it is an abbreviation I find particularly annoying; I overlooked it to in the spirit of friendship/ camaraderie. But it seems we all may be skimming the texts. For my misreading, I'm Sorry. Third, there is a question of revisionist history I am introducing... A number of assertions I make trace the language of the original post from RK Projects and the Magic Lantern Cinema. Even so, the link I offered does seem to assert a connection in the first paragraph referencing it to John Cage, who stated it to: Emma Lavigne, curator at the Pompidou Centre in Paris, who wrote in an essay published in the Warhol Live exhibition catalogue that the impact made by the Vexations concert was decisive and inspired the artist to the unprecedented, repetitive structure of the film Sleep (1963). I also recall hearing a John Giorno poetry reading at MoMA in which he claims a similar connection for Vexations. But on further reflection, Giorno also added to the significance of Cage's presentation of Vexations, a story of his discussion about Sleep with Branden Joseph in which the latter connects the repetition and editing process to Rosicrucian ideas (and that Satie was a Rosicrucian). Between Giorno and P. Adams Sitney, there are claims from both ends of the spectrum (poet to historian) that Warhol shot Sleep with 100' foot rolls. Giorno even claims in the MoMA interview that Warhol was even hand winding the camera at the beginning of filming. However, I still find what Tony Conrad presents compelling. The Vexations concert was, in fact, during Sept. of 1963, well before VU public arrival in the latter half of 1964. Yet, Cale's gig-ography on the internets claims the La Monte Young concert at at Henry Geldzahler's home took place 3/7/65, a year after the Jan. '64 premier of Sleep. What seems revisionist in the Vexations narrative is that it seems to reduces Warhol to an acolyte of Rauschenberg/ Johns/Cage, and I believe he was more complicated than that--Contrary to Warhol's own words. I'd love to hear more of Tony's thoughts about the La Monte Young influences. Damon. On Feb 12, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Tony Conrad wrote: John Cale performed in the Vexations concert, among others of course, but that was well before the VU, as I recall. However, Andy was in contact with La Monte Young about sound for his films when they were shown at Lincoln Center. I can't accept the idea that Andy got the idea for repetition, or editing together long films, from Satie. First, it's far more probable that he got the idea from our group with La Monte; we even gave a concert at Henry Geldzahler's place. Second, Andy generally used a magazine with 1200 foot reels so he wouldn't have to splice or do any editing. --t0ny On Sun 02/12/12 6:11 PM , Eric Theise ericthe...@gmail.com sent: Hi Fred, In Edie (Stein w/Plimpton, pp 234-235), George Plimpton recountsriding in a freight elevator with Warhol and mentioning the Carnegie Hall concert organized by Cage. I mentioned it to Andy only because I thought he might be vaguely interested--he was doing these eight-hour films of people sleeping. It never occurred to me that he knew of this concert, or of Satie, since it wouldn't have surprised me a bit if he'd never heard of Satie. His reaction startled me. He said, Ohhh, ohhh, ohhh! I'dnever seen his face so animated. It made a distinct impression. Between ohhh's he told me that he'd actually gone to the concert and sat through the whole thing. He couldn't have been more delighted to be telling me about it. My reading of the announcement is that the Vexations concert in Providence is 45 minutes long, and that it precedes the screening. --Eric On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Fred Camper .com wrote: Quoting Damon @gmail.com: While this presentation of Sleep certainly differs from the original  screenings of the film, it is also far from a Youtube hommage. Vexations played an important role in Warhol's conception of the film, and he took from Satie a working method making possible the editing of his short reels into a lengthy film. Sorry I don't
Re: [Frameworks] Value systems
I think value is a deeply significant question at this moment. How do we define value? Where do we find value in works? Is it manifest in 'significant form'? Is it attached to Art's ability to present (continuing to trace the Heideggerian concepts) a clearing where we experience Truth and a fleeting glimpse at World, or more commonly, do we measure value as commodity exchange value? Certainly, when we speak of the cinema it is easy to find evidence to the latter. What is the front line of film criticism, that initial pass at value judgment in the media? Certainly we can bemoan criticism's death rattle, or even wax nostalgic at its wake, but this may miss the point that it is alive--just not well. Unfortunately, I think the Box-Office Champion of the weekend acts as our critical arbiter of value. After the box scores, then the evaluative apparatus turns to diagnoses of where potential audience was lost. Art, in this instance, is but an instrumental tool toward the accumulation of capital, making it a means and not an end. But this seems to reduce question of value to ideology critique at the pedestrian level of acceptance/resistance to the commercially popular. Debating freedom of expression can be of import, for it helps us to understand value resides in places other than commercial exchange. But in this light, we must be careful not to equate freedoms of expression with some form of social justice (I'm not asserting Bernie was doing this), which may have allowed value to become equated with commercial exchange. Certainly we live in an era where the acceptable 'styles' one chooses to work in have never been more vast, but the freedom of this creative landscape is simply a free-market principle. What do our works accomplish? So there is, most likely, a need to tie aesthetics to politics, but also a politics to ethics. Here I would like Bernie to expand on what he means by professional responsibility. I am in partial agreement that this is not a question of avant-garde relevance, mostly for I believe that any A-G is difficult to tease out of our free-market setting. How can we recognize an avant-garde or counter-movement, which has been historically underappreciated, when our arbiter to recognize value is popularity? It is difficult to tell the AG counter-movement from the bad (yes, this a weak assertion). Performance art, in my line of argument is where we find our rose-tinted glasses. We are reluctant to admit how lost we are concerning questions of value, and instead we describe our culture as one of Enjoyment. This enjoyment is rooted in novel experiences, with novelty being, maybe, the one core value of the modern, and therefore performance in the gallery is a novel 'experience' for most. What value do we find in Marina Abramovic sitting motionless in the chair, or conversely playing mumbly-peg (The Artist is Present vs Rhythm 10)? Certainly, for those who commit themselves to a process of interpretation, deeper meaning structures can be found, but is this interpretive work being done by an experience culture? And yes, the arts administrators value this work, because given its 'spectacular' novelty it raises admissions. Said differently, are Impressionist and Vermeer exhibitions mounted for the quality of the work, or the block-buster attendance? Do we attend film festivals for the work, or participation in a scene? To take the example of Sundance, it would seem that programming once centered on the work has given way to in support of a scene (but this may be an ad hominem assertion). So how do we go about re-valuing our values? Is it in a recognition that art is an autonomous creative space wholly separate from life, or rather that it is deeply implicated in how we live our lives? If that is the case, what would that art look like? Is it possible to make work that is both political, and/or ethical which is not merely a comment on its finite contextual moment destined to become dated in a decade or a generation at most? Damon. The point I was making in my question followed on from Fred’s posting that included: It seems to be entirely acceptable and unquestioned on this list to post that some or all forms of video projection look like crap ... As a format for presenting film, it is, of course, imperfect, as I myself argued almost three decades ago, though that was in the days of VHS, a lot worse than more recent formats. Assumptions about ‘quality’ need to be challenged. Issues around ‘quality’ are based upon value systems which in themselves operate ideologically. Can the politics be seperated from the aesthetics? This seems entirely relevent as we watch evictions of the Occupations - and that doesn’t mean I’m advocating literalism - just putting my original question into context. Rob On Nov 21, 2011, at 10:14 AM
Re: [Frameworks] Lawrence Brose court case
I'm in agreement, yikes! Assuming there was reason for concern with Brose's work, why would it be a Homeland Security issue rather than a more pedestrian FBI issue. I fear the reason is that Homeland Security has summary powers of detention and total control of evidence, while being detained by the FBI entitles one to due process in the legal system. Being charged by Homeland Security can operate at the level of unsubstantiated assertion when they refuse to produce the evidence by claiming it to be sensitive or a concern for national security. Whereas the FBI has a much more difficult time bypassing the evidentiary proof of their charges. Being charged by the FBI allows us presumed innocence, while Homeland Security seems to require we prove our innocence. Increasingly, it seems that the Bush Administration created our Secret Police, and the Obama Administration did not do its duty by dismantling it, and rather they have come to find it a convenient tool. Damon. On Nov 9, 2011, at 4:44 PM, carli...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/9/2011 1:25:51 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, jkne...@colgate.edu writes: Yikes!! Those creeps!! Poor Lawrence. This is the new way of putting people away... And it works, too, these kind of spurious sexual allegations. People go nuts in response. Look at what happened to Wikileaks. We'll be seeing a lot more of this tactic in the future, too ___ 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] HF NOSTALGIA - TRANSCRIPTION
Esperanza (Adam), Yes, the narration text is available in the recent book of Frampton's writings (here is a link for reference) http://www.amazon.com/Camera-Arts-Consecutive-Matters-Writings/dp/ 0262062763/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1316630004sr=1-1 But it may be easier to find a copy of the journal where it was originally published: Film Culture no. 53-55 (Spring 1972): 105-111. I second the question about the Criterion set, does anybody know a projected release date? Damon. On Sep 21, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Adam Hyman wrote: I believe the script is in the new edition of his book of writings, but don’t have it in front of me to check... Best, Adam On 9/21/11 10:34 AM, Esperanza Collado esperanzacolla...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I am showing Frampton's Nostalgia here in Spain and I need to get a transcription of the monologue in order to translate it. Any of you have this? would be tremendous. Oh, and any news about that Criterion edition? Merci, ___ 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
