Anyone can walk by a painting liking it or not, but sitting in a darkened
room as a captive audience may not have quite as many dedicated fans
True. But people who walk by a painting not liking it aren't exactly fans. One
of the benefits of a proper theatrical screening space is that viewers
I don't know much of her story either, though yes, she apparently had
art world connections. She seems to work mainly in film, but is
represented by a gallery. Some people on the list must be familiar
with her work? . . . However beautiful or interesting her films may
be, there are
gallery representation is the key
On Mar 5, 2012, at 11:41 PM, John Woods wrote:
Balsom rightly points out that in the museum world there is a double
standard “whereby experimental film-makers are treated with less respect
than ‘artists working in film’ – such as Tacita Dean, Stan Douglas
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/arts/design/juan-downey-the-invisible-architect-at-bronx-museum.html?_r=1ref=design
Sculptures That Answer Back
‘Juan Downey: The Invisible Architect’ at Bronx Museum
By MARTHA SCHWENDENER
Published: March 1, 2012
And here you can see the other reason, besides
an inter-negative is still a reproduction subject to the qualities
of the film stock and the available technology to make it from the
original. The original is ultimately fugitive and undergoes changes
as does the internegative and certainly the prints. The museum would
need to own and
I was probably exaggerating about the work a museum would need to do
to maintain a film work.
Probably no worse than the climate controlled rooms for great
paintings etc. and the budgets for restorations.
The museums could own the orignal work, the internegative, and the
print, and finance
Great post Myron!!
Myron wrote:
The film commodity would have to be dealt with in a way that even a great
piece of photography does not require.
That's a valid point, but I wonder if it might cut both ways. That is, the cost
of maintaining a film might initially be a hurdle for museums
On Mar 6, 2012, at 2:52 PM, David Tetzlaff wrote:
This is why I said the museum model is way more workable for moving
image work of celluloid 'original'. If you shoot in 1080P, the only
difference between the 'original' and the 'reproduction' is the
compression artifacting in the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Awhile back, Chuck Kleinhans posted a link to an essay by Erika
Balsom, about the place of experimental cinema within the museum/art
world context, which I did find interesting and wanted to make some
response to. Sorry for the length. I assume all uninterested can
just delete now!
Thursday, February 23, 2012, 7:39:39 AM, one wrote:
Frameworks readers might be interested in this article in a new
journal from Intellect books: It's free as an electronic file; the single
copy price is US $36.00
Strikingly relevant to one point in a recent discussion, isn't it?
[saved for
17 matches
Mail list logo
