Re: [Frameworks] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Steve Polta]

Herbert Jean deGrasse:* Film Watchers* (1974)
http://canyoncinema.com/catalog/film/?i=730

Back to Tony Conrad and spoilers...
Somewhere out there there are stories about a very short Conrad film which
involves a long, very elaborate, personal introduction by the filmmaker, in
which he goes on and on about how maximal the film is, how it is such
compacted and impactively overwhelming and immersive experience that words
cannot do it justice etc. Reports report that the introduction is easier
longer than the film itself. But when the film is screened (and I don't
know what film it is), the film—perhaps due to this hyperbolic set-up,
perhaps due to its own artistic merits—when the film is screened it
delivers on Conrad's promise. Always been curious about this.

In a way (somehow) this recalls (to me) the film-within-a-film in Kelly
Sears' *Once It Started It Could Not End Otherwise*
,
which (the film-within-the-film) is presented as "evidence" of a mysterious
disaster which is described but also not described...

Steve Polta



On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Andy Ditzler  wrote:

> I'd recommend The Cut-Ups, film by Antony Balch in collaboration with
> William Burroughs and Brion Gysin. On two occasions (Documenta in 2007 and
> my own screening in Atlanta 2009), it drove the audience into active
> rebellion. (Since I had associated screening rebellions with past eras, I
> was quite surprised to see one take place!) It was the repetitive
> soundtrack: "Yes, hello," and a few other phrases, spoken in overlap by
> Burroughs and Gysin, unrelenting for twenty minutes. After awhile,
> impatient viewers started audibly throwing the phrases back at the screen
> ('HELLO!!"), while the rest of the audience nervously laughed or otherwise
> audibly squirmed. Among other things, the film - as screened publicly - is
> a great prank. In a long early-70s profile in Cinema Rising, Balch
> described similar discombobulation at the film's early London screenings.
> However, a more recent screening at MoMA (which placed the film in a much
> different historical and audience context) garnered no audible reaction at
> all.
>
> The other day reading P. Adams Sitney's book Eyes Upside Down (p. 174), I
> came across a reference to a film I haven't seen but mean to track down:
> "Herbert Jean deGrasse's hilarious Film Watchers (1974) hurls abuse at
> typical avant-garde film audiences."
>
> "Reactionary right-wingers" might have the majority of exactly the kind of
> protest you describe. What about thinking of this in larger terms too - the
> reactions in the U.S. to Last Temptation of Christ or, especially, Marlon
> Riggs' Tongues Untied, which most saw on public television - no screen to
> tear down, but plenty of invective, much of which I have always suspected
> was triggered by the film's form as much as its content.
>
> Andy Ditzler
> Founder and curator, Film Love: www.filmlove.org
> Co-founder, John Q collective: www.johnq.org
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Jesse Malmed 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm looking for texts and works that draw connections (and erase them
>> too, sure) between early cinema and the beginnings of video. And, for that
>> matter, with other nascent technologies and their shared tendencies. Camera
>> tricks, formal inventiveness, actualities, etc.
>>
>> Also, while I've got you — I was thinking about the (perhaps apocryphal,
>> cunningly Gunningly so) stories of genuine fears about the Lumière train's
>> first projection and the stories of the outraged audience at an early
>> showing of L'Age D'Or throwing ink at the screen in protest. Ink on the
>> screen is a pretty amazing gesture (it is about to not go without saying
>> that I am obviously staunchly in the camp of artists over reactionary
>> right-wingers) even/especially with its scale of potency to poetry. Are
>> there other related stories you'd like to share? Torn down screens? Shadow
>> puppets between the projector and the screen? Well-deployed spoilers?
>>
>> *JM*
>>
>> --
>> *// // // J E S S E  M A L M E D *
>> 505.690.7899 // jesse.mal...@gmail.com // live to tape
>> 
>> jessemalmed.net  // deep leap
>>  // nightingale 
>> // trunk show  //
>> projective verse  // bad at
>> sports  // acre_tv
>>  // western pole 
>>
>> *
>> Trunk
>> Show in Newcity
>> **
>> / **JM on WDCB
>> 

Re: [Frameworks] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Bernard Roddy]

I think this work by Tony mentioned by Fred is reproduced as a
diagram/instruction in:
W + B Hein : Dokumente 1967-1985, Fotos, Briefe, Texte.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Cinema Project 
wrote:

> Jesse!
>
> In regards to "well-deployed spoilers," I might look into Maurice
> LeMaître's "Le film est déjà commencé?" from 1952. It was a Lettrist film
> and supposed staged provocation. There's some accounts/ info on it in
> Off-Screen Cinema by Kaira M Cabañas.
>
> Might not be what you're looking for at all, but it's an interesting sort
> of (delayed) response to those legendary "reactions."
>
> Mia Ferm
>
> --
> *Cinema Project*
> www.cinemaproject.org
> 971-266-0085
> PO Box 5991
> Portland, OR 97228
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Fred Camper  wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's right. Because it was positive film, a succession of black
>> and white rectangles appeared inside each other as with each new pass the
>> previous result was filmed. I believe it was around 40 minutes long. It was
>> really interesting; I had never seen anything like it before, and have not
>> since.
>>
>> Fred Camper
>>
>>
>> On 1/13/2016 11:32 PM, Gene Youngblood wrote:
>>
>> I believe Tony Conrad did some kind of demonstration or performance of
>> “film feedback” in which exposed 16mm film went immediately into a
>> developing bath and was projected, and the projection was filmed and
>> projected, and so on.  No doubt someone on this list remembers that and can
>> describe it properly. Also, for scholars of early video, in the current
>> issue of Afterimage Robyn Farrell has an in-depth history of Gerry Schum’s
>> “TV Gallery” and “Video Gallery” projects in Germany in the late sixties,
>> which I only alluded to in passing in Expanded Cinema.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:17 PM, robert harris  wrote:
>>
>> The “early cinema/early video” query is a good one, one that I’ve not
>> seen explored with much rigor.
>>
>> Kleinhans’ question of “broadcast TV or portapak” is significant.
>>
>> Early TV might have more in common with radio than with early film.
>>
>> Early video (portapak) provoked, for some practitioners, sensibilities in
>> keeping with those of the Lumieres.
>>
>> The Lumiere camera was more like video than any other camera (including
>> the Edison version) as it was, like video, a capture and playback device
>> (and lab).
>>
>> The promptness with which the Lumieres could playback their recordings
>> (if my film mythology serves me) is almost video-like (time was a little
>> slower in those days, so they say).
>>
>>  Both early film and early video were made without post-production
>> edits, hence were finished in camera.
>>
>>  Video’s instant feedback loop is an unequivocal distinction from film.
>>
>> To give proper attention to all origin strains of video, you have to
>> consider camera-less, raster based work (Nam June Paik, Wolf Vostell and
>> others).
>>
>> The “early cinema” equivalent might be the first people to mark on clear
>> leader, some Italian Futurists, Hans Richter, Man Ray etc.
>>
>>  As to cultural “outrage”, it wasn’t uncommon for the people throwing
>> things at the artists and making big scenes to be the Surrealists
>> themselves.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some worthy writing of early video (essays you should be able to easily
>> find):
>>
>> Hollis Frampton, *The Withering Away of the State of the Art*
>>
>> David Antin, *Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:46 AM, Chuck Kleinhans 
>> wrote:
>>
>> An answer depends on how “early” you’re talking about film (1890s?
>> later?), and about video (Broadcast TV or Portapak?).  Probably the most
>> significant common feature is the fixed camera position.
>>
>> The most significant difference (beyond the obvious one of resolution) is
>> shot duration.  Video (portpak on) allowed for remarkably long shots
>> compared to almost all film.
>>
>> If you (or anyone) can find it, Noel Burch’s film “Correction Please, or
>> How We Got Into Pictures” is a great explanation of the evolution of early
>> films' means and style, concentrating on how the audience was shaped by the
>> evolving formal elements of cinema.
>>
>> 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 
>> listFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comhttps://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Steve Polta]

A 16mm print of Tony Conrad's *Film Feedback *is distributed in 16mm by
Canyon Cinema.
http://canyoncinema.com/catalog/film/?i=680
1974, 15 minutes.
Yeah I think it's a candle but it's basically "the" rectangle. White
screen, filmed in negative becomes black, re-projected & filmed, processed
again, re-projected/filmed pos/neg/pos/neg/etc. Becomes rectangles within
rectangles within rectangles, alternating black/white/black/white,
receding. At one point there is a little jam, a little frame line stutter,
this (presumable) accidental gesture is re-photographed in subsequent
iterations of the series and becomes a major event in this "minimalist"
film. Now that I've written this I'm not 100% certain of presence of the
on-screen the candle.

This film recalls (to me) a series of performance films by William Raban
titled *2'45* (1973), in which the filmmaker, standing in front of a
screen, speaks a short description of the *2'45* project and is
filmed—single take—in 16mm sync sound. The resultant married print is then
projected (with sound), say a day later, with the filmmaker making the same
speech (so he's on screen and in real life; get it?), this combo also being
sync filmed. The result is then projected (so there's two of him on screen,
rectangle within rectangle, receding) while he speaks, etc etc etc. 16mm
feedback loop but not instantaneous; there's about a day lag between
segments. No it's not endlessly ongoing; it's a different version on
different occasions.

Steve Polta




On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Pip Chodorov 
wrote:

> I can provide Lemaitre's film if you are interested.
> Isou's film ON VENOM AND ETERNITY is an earlier iteration, Lemaitre went
> farther into self-recursion (a film about itself).
> Pip
>
>
> At 22:47 -0800 13/01/16, Cinema Project wrote:
>
>> In regards to "well-deployed spoilers," I might look into Maurice
>> LeMaître's "Le film est déjà commencé?" from 1952. It was a Lettrist film
>> and supposed staged provocation. There's some accounts/ info on it in
>> Off-Screen Cinema by Kaira M Cabañas.
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Esperanza Collado]

I was thinking of Raban´s piece as well, and there is another Conrad work
that may fit into the idea of "well-deployed spoilers" which is his "Film
electrocution". I copy and paste from IFFR:

"A semi-scientific experiment to expose film by electrocution, involving a
Tesla Coil, medical lubricant and buckets of film developer. Results will
be screened on the spot. Conrad’s self-reflexivity is invested with far
more self-mocking humour than any other visionary experimental filmmaker
could muster. The artist’s struggle with media equipment and codes, the
effort to force them past their oppressive limitations, became an
Herculean, or Chaplinesque, battle with an unyielding authority. In *Film
Electrocution*, Conrad attempted to make an image without exposing the film
to light, submitting it instead to boiling, baking, and electroshock. See
also his *Pickled Films* in the exhibition Borderline Behaviour."

There may be a few Lettrist actions you´d like to consider as well indeed,
works falling in the realm of happening and performance that involve the
destruction of the film equipment and other reactionary actions such as
interrupting the screening several times or lock the audience in the venue.
The one by Lemaitre others mentioned is particularly interesting because
projector, screen and film were torned into pieces in front of audience.

The Viennese actionists also come to mind, with their anarchistic and
agressive performances towards the audience using balls made of barbed wire
against the screen, an "audience extinguiser", and whipping the audience
too...check Valie Export and Peter Weibel for that, or (less provocative)
the performance *The Time for ACTION has come*, by Gottfried Schlemmer in
which he cuts through the actual screen and jumps into the audience.
There´s some interesting stories about José Antonio de Maenza too
interrupting screenings and faking shoots... My own work in collaboration
with Maximilian Le Cain (Operation Rewrite) is very much connected with
this line of artistic research too, and destruction/failure of equipment
has been present in our work.  Another piece that comes to mind is Ernst
Schmidt Jr.´s *Hells Angels*, involving no actual film projection but the
whole audience throwing paper balls to the screen (illuminated by naked
light from a projector). I guess that is a sort of "spoiler" too...

Hasta la vista,

Esperanza.

2016-01-14 9:16 GMT+01:00 Steve Polta :

> A 16mm print of Tony Conrad's *Film Feedback *is distributed in 16mm by
> Canyon Cinema.
> http://canyoncinema.com/catalog/film/?i=680
> 1974, 15 minutes.
> Yeah I think it's a candle but it's basically "the" rectangle. White
> screen, filmed in negative becomes black, re-projected & filmed, processed
> again, re-projected/filmed pos/neg/pos/neg/etc. Becomes rectangles within
> rectangles within rectangles, alternating black/white/black/white,
> receding. At one point there is a little jam, a little frame line stutter,
> this (presumable) accidental gesture is re-photographed in subsequent
> iterations of the series and becomes a major event in this "minimalist"
> film. Now that I've written this I'm not 100% certain of presence of the
> on-screen the candle.
>
> This film recalls (to me) a series of performance films by William Raban
> titled *2'45* (1973), in which the filmmaker, standing in front of a
> screen, speaks a short description of the *2'45* project and is
> filmed—single take—in 16mm sync sound. The resultant married print is then
> projected (with sound), say a day later, with the filmmaker making the same
> speech (so he's on screen and in real life; get it?), this combo also being
> sync filmed. The result is then projected (so there's two of him on screen,
> rectangle within rectangle, receding) while he speaks, etc etc etc. 16mm
> feedback loop but not instantaneous; there's about a day lag between
> segments. No it's not endlessly ongoing; it's a different version on
> different occasions.
>
> Steve Polta
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Pip Chodorov 
> wrote:
>
>> I can provide Lemaitre's film if you are interested.
>> Isou's film ON VENOM AND ETERNITY is an earlier iteration, Lemaitre went
>> farther into self-recursion (a film about itself).
>> Pip
>>
>>
>> At 22:47 -0800 13/01/16, Cinema Project wrote:
>>
>>> In regards to "well-deployed spoilers," I might look into Maurice
>>> LeMaître's "Le film est déjà commencé?" from 1952. It was a Lettrist film
>>> and supposed staged provocation. There's some accounts/ info on it in
>>> Off-Screen Cinema by Kaira M Cabañas.
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Esperanza 

Re: [Frameworks] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Jonathan Walley]

There is indeed a candle onscreen, though by the end of the film the image gets 
pretty hard to make out but the end - its legibility is already compromised by 
the speedy development process (the film was running at only a few frames per 
second out from the camera, over rollers, under doors, through 
processing/fixing/wiping off, and finally out into the room with the projector 
and screen). The purpose of the candle, as I understand it, was to “prove” that 
the nested images were created in real time, not the result of multiple 
optically-printed shots edited together. The candle burns uninterrupted as the 
images shift from positive to negative and back again, each new layer pushing 
the previous one(s) back into an ever-deepening nest of images, like a mirror 
tunnel. 

My recollection is that the film was intended to make the film medium do 
something that another medium was said to do uniquely (i.e. feedback as a 
phenomenon unique to video, not to mention video’s immediacy, another trait 
often singled out in early texts on video art as something distinct to video). 

[from the department of self-aggrandizement, I write about FF in “Identity 
Crisis…” in October 137).

Lots to say about the implications of this film for emerging critical 
discourses on video art and TV in the 1970s, and specifically the relationship 
between cinema and video, especially as the latter seems to have begun to 
distinguish itself from the blanket term “expanded cinema” (and just “cinema”) 
as the ‘70s wore on. I might have time later to expound/expand later (as if 
anyone cares). 

JW

Dr. Jonathan Walley
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Cinema
Denison University
wall...@denison.edu


> On Jan 14, 2016, at 3:16 AM, Steve Polta  wrote:
> 
> A 16mm print of Tony Conrad's Film Feedback is distributed in 16mm by Canyon 
> Cinema.
> http://canyoncinema.com/catalog/film/?i=680 
> 
> 1974, 15 minutes.
> Yeah I think it's a candle but it's basically "the" rectangle. White screen, 
> filmed in negative becomes black, re-projected & filmed, processed again, 
> re-projected/filmed pos/neg/pos/neg/etc. Becomes rectangles within rectangles 
> within rectangles, alternating black/white/black/white, receding. At one 
> point there is a little jam, a little frame line stutter, this (presumable) 
> accidental gesture is re-photographed in subsequent iterations of the series 
> and becomes a major event in this "minimalist" film. Now that I've written 
> this I'm not 100% certain of presence of the on-screen the candle.
> 
> This film recalls (to me) a series of performance films by William Raban 
> titled 2'45 (1973), in which the filmmaker, standing in front of a screen, 
> speaks a short description of the 2'45 project and is filmed—single take—in 
> 16mm sync sound. The resultant married print is then projected (with sound), 
> say a day later, with the filmmaker making the same speech (so he's on screen 
> and in real life; get it?), this combo also being sync filmed. The result is 
> then projected (so there's two of him on screen, rectangle within rectangle, 
> receding) while he speaks, etc etc etc. 16mm feedback loop but not 
> instantaneous; there's about a day lag between segments. No it's not 
> endlessly ongoing; it's a different version on different occasions.
> 
> Steve Polta
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Pip Chodorov  > wrote:
> I can provide Lemaitre's film if you are interested.
> Isou's film ON VENOM AND ETERNITY is an earlier iteration, Lemaitre went 
> farther into self-recursion (a film about itself).
> Pip
> 
> 
> At 22:47 -0800 13/01/16, Cinema Project wrote:
> In regards to "well-deployed spoilers," I might look into Maurice LeMaître's 
> "Le film est déjà commencé?" from 1952. It was a Lettrist film and supposed 
> staged provocation. There's some accounts/ info on it in Off-Screen Cinema by 
> Kaira M Cabañas.
> 
> ___
> 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] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Andy Ditzler]

I'd recommend The Cut-Ups, film by Antony Balch in collaboration with
William Burroughs and Brion Gysin. On two occasions (Documenta in 2007 and
my own screening in Atlanta 2009), it drove the audience into active
rebellion. (Since I had associated screening rebellions with past eras, I
was quite surprised to see one take place!) It was the repetitive
soundtrack: "Yes, hello," and a few other phrases, spoken in overlap by
Burroughs and Gysin, unrelenting for twenty minutes. After awhile,
impatient viewers started audibly throwing the phrases back at the screen
('HELLO!!"), while the rest of the audience nervously laughed or otherwise
audibly squirmed. Among other things, the film - as screened publicly - is
a great prank. In a long early-70s profile in Cinema Rising, Balch
described similar discombobulation at the film's early London screenings.
However, a more recent screening at MoMA (which placed the film in a much
different historical and audience context) garnered no audible reaction at
all.

The other day reading P. Adams Sitney's book Eyes Upside Down (p. 174), I
came across a reference to a film I haven't seen but mean to track down:
"Herbert Jean deGrasse's hilarious Film Watchers (1974) hurls abuse at
typical avant-garde film audiences."

"Reactionary right-wingers" might have the majority of exactly the kind of
protest you describe. What about thinking of this in larger terms too - the
reactions in the U.S. to Last Temptation of Christ or, especially, Marlon
Riggs' Tongues Untied, which most saw on public television - no screen to
tear down, but plenty of invective, much of which I have always suspected
was triggered by the film's form as much as its content.

Andy Ditzler
Founder and curator, Film Love: www.filmlove.org
Co-founder, John Q collective: www.johnq.org



On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Jesse Malmed 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for texts and works that draw connections (and erase them too,
> sure) between early cinema and the beginnings of video. And, for that
> matter, with other nascent technologies and their shared tendencies. Camera
> tricks, formal inventiveness, actualities, etc.
>
> Also, while I've got you — I was thinking about the (perhaps apocryphal,
> cunningly Gunningly so) stories of genuine fears about the Lumière train's
> first projection and the stories of the outraged audience at an early
> showing of L'Age D'Or throwing ink at the screen in protest. Ink on the
> screen is a pretty amazing gesture (it is about to not go without saying
> that I am obviously staunchly in the camp of artists over reactionary
> right-wingers) even/especially with its scale of potency to poetry. Are
> there other related stories you'd like to share? Torn down screens? Shadow
> puppets between the projector and the screen? Well-deployed spoilers?
>
> *JM*
>
> --
> *// // // J E S S E  M A L M E D *
> 505.690.7899 // jesse.mal...@gmail.com // live to tape
> 
> jessemalmed.net  // deep leap
>  // nightingale 
> // trunk show  //
> projective verse  // bad at
> sports  // acre_tv
>  // western pole 
>
> *
> Trunk
> Show in Newcity
> ** /
> **JM on WDCB
> ** /**
> Live to Tape in the Reader
> 
> / **Trunk Show in the Chicago Reader
> 
> / JM in the Reader
> 
>  /
> Gapers Block
> 
> / South Side Weekly
>  / Chicago Tribune
> Best of 2015
> *
>
> ___
> 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] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Jonathan Walley]

http://rhizome.org/editorial/2009/jan/07/setting-the-tome/ 


scroll to the bottom of the article for the diagram. 

I’ve heard tell of this work being produced more than once, and I’ve always 
wanted to try it myself (with a group of stalwart cinema students). 

JW

> On Jan 14, 2016, at 1:12 PM, Bernard Roddy  wrote:
> 
> I think this work by Tony mentioned by Fred is reproduced as a 
> diagram/instruction in:
> 
> W + B Hein : Dokumente 1967-1985, Fotos, Briefe, Texte.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Cinema Project  > wrote:
> Jesse! 
> 
> In regards to "well-deployed spoilers," I might look into Maurice LeMaître's 
> "Le film est déjà commencé?" from 1952. It was a Lettrist film and supposed 
> staged provocation. There's some accounts/ info on it in Off-Screen Cinema by 
> Kaira M Cabañas. 
> 
> Might not be what you're looking for at all, but it's an interesting sort of 
> (delayed) response to those legendary "reactions." 
> 
> Mia Ferm
> 
> -- 
> Cinema Project
> www.cinemaproject.org 
> 971-266-0085 
> PO Box 5991 
> Portland, OR 97228
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Fred Camper  > wrote:
> Yes, that's right. Because it was positive film, a succession of black and 
> white rectangles appeared inside each other as with each new pass the 
> previous result was filmed. I believe it was around 40 minutes long. It was 
> really interesting; I had never seen anything like it before, and have not 
> since.
> 
> Fred Camper
> 
> 
> On 1/13/2016 11:32 PM, Gene Youngblood wrote:
>> I believe Tony Conrad did some kind of demonstration or performance of “film 
>> feedback” in which exposed 16mm film went immediately into a developing bath 
>> and was projected, and the projection was filmed and projected, and so on.  
>> No doubt someone on this list remembers that and can describe it properly. 
>> Also, for scholars of early video, in the current issue of Afterimage Robyn 
>> Farrell has an in-depth history of Gerry Schum’s “TV Gallery” and “Video 
>> Gallery” projects in Germany in the late sixties, which I only alluded to in 
>> passing in Expanded Cinema.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:17 PM, robert harris >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> The “early cinema/early video” query is a good one, one that I’ve not seen 
>>> explored with much rigor. 
>>> 
>>> Kleinhans’ question of “broadcast TV or portapak” is significant.
>>> 
>>> Early TV might have more in common with radio than with early film.
>>> 
>>> Early video (portapak) provoked, for some practitioners, sensibilities in 
>>> keeping with those of the Lumieres. 
>>> 
>>> The Lumiere camera was more like video than any other camera (including the 
>>> Edison version) as it was, like video, a capture and playback device (and 
>>> lab).
>>> 
>>> The promptness with which the Lumieres could playback their recordings (if 
>>> my film mythology serves me) is almost video-like (time was a little slower 
>>> in those days, so they say).
>>> 
>>>  Both early film and early video were made without post-production edits, 
>>> hence were finished in camera.
>>> 
>>>  Video’s instant feedback loop is an unequivocal distinction from film.
>>> 
>>> To give proper attention to all origin strains of video, you have to 
>>> consider camera-less, raster based work (Nam June Paik, Wolf Vostell and 
>>> others).
>>> 
>>> The “early cinema” equivalent might be the first people to mark on clear 
>>> leader, some Italian Futurists, Hans Richter, Man Ray etc.
>>> 
>>>  As to cultural “outrage”, it wasn’t uncommon for the people throwing 
>>> things at the artists and making big scenes to be the Surrealists 
>>> themselves.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Some worthy writing of early video (essays you should be able to easily 
>>> find): 
>>> 
>>> Hollis Frampton, The Withering Away of the State of the Art
>>> 
>>> David Antin, Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:46 AM, Chuck Kleinhans >> > wrote:
>>> 
 An answer depends on how “early” you’re talking about film (1890s? 
 later?), and about video (Broadcast TV or Portapak?).  Probably the most 
 significant common feature is the fixed camera position.
 
 The most significant difference (beyond the obvious one of resolution) is 
 shot duration.  Video (portpak on) allowed for remarkably long shots 
 compared to almost all film.
 
 If you (or anyone) can find it, Noel Burch’s film “Correction Please, or 
 How We Got Into Pictures” is a great explanation of the evolution of early 
 films' means and style, concentrating on how the audience was shaped by 
 the evolving formal elements of cinema.

Re: [Frameworks] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Jamie Cleeland]

http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781400853366_sample_641045.pdf

Sent from my iPad

> On 13 Jan 2016, at 14:46, Chuck Kleinhans  wrote:
> 
> An answer depends on how “early” you’re talking about film (1890s? later?), 
> and about video (Broadcast TV or Portapak?).  Probably the most significant 
> common feature is the fixed camera position.
> 
> The most significant difference (beyond the obvious one of resolution) is 
> shot duration.  Video (portpak on) allowed for remarkably long shots compared 
> to almost all film.
> 
> If you (or anyone) can find it, Noel Burch’s film “Correction Please, or How 
> We Got Into Pictures” is a great explanation of the evolution of early films' 
> means and style, concentrating on how the audience was shaped by the evolving 
> formal elements of cinema.
> 
> 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

Re: [Frameworks] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Fred Camper]

Yes, that's right. Because it was positive film, a succession of black 
and white rectangles appeared inside each other as with each new pass 
the previous result was filmed. I believe it was around 40 minutes long. 
It was really interesting; I had never seen anything like it before, and 
have not since.


Fred Camper

On 1/13/2016 11:32 PM, Gene Youngblood wrote:
I believe Tony Conrad did some kind of demonstration or performance of 
“film feedback” in which exposed 16mm film went immediately into a 
developing bath and was projected, and the projection was filmed and 
projected, and so on.  No doubt someone on this list remembers that 
and can describe it properly. Also, for scholars of early video, in 
the current issue of Afterimage Robyn Farrell has an in-depth history 
of Gerry Schum’s “TV Gallery” and “Video Gallery” projects in Germany 
in the late sixties, which I only alluded to in passing in Expanded 
Cinema.



On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:17 PM, robert harris > wrote:


The “early cinema/early video” query is a good one, one that I’ve not 
seen explored with much rigor.


Kleinhans’ question of “broadcast TV or portapak” is significant.

Early TV might have more in common with radio than with early film.

Early video (portapak) provoked, for some practitioners, 
sensibilities in keeping with those of the Lumieres.


The Lumiere camera was more like video than any other camera 
(including the Edison version) as it was, like video, a capture and 
playback device (and lab).


The promptness with which the Lumieres could playback their 
recordings (if my film mythology serves me) is almost video-like 
(time was a little slower in those days, so they say).


Both early film and early video were made without post-production 
edits, hence were finished in camera.


Video’s instant feedback loop is an unequivocal distinction from film.

To give proper attention to all origin strains of video, you have to 
consider camera-less, raster based work (Nam June Paik, Wolf Vostell 
and others).


The “early cinema” equivalent might be the first people to mark on 
clear leader, some Italian Futurists, Hans Richter, Man Ray etc.


As to cultural “outrage”, it wasn’t uncommon for the people throwing 
things at the artists and making big scenes to be the Surrealists 
themselves.


Some worthy writing of early video (essays you should be able to 
easily find):


Hollis Frampton, /The Withering Away of the State of the Art/

David Antin, /Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium/




On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:46 AM, Chuck Kleinhans 
> wrote:


An answer depends on how “early” you’re talking about film (1890s? 
later?), and about video (Broadcast TV or Portapak?).  Probably the 
most significant common feature is the fixed camera position.


The most significant difference (beyond the obvious one of 
resolution) is shot duration.  Video (portpak on) allowed for 
remarkably long shots compared to almost all film.


If you (or anyone) can find it, Noel Burch’s film “Correction 
Please, or How We Got Into Pictures” is a great explanation of the 
evolution of early films' means and style, concentrating on how the 
audience was shaped by the evolving formal elements of cinema.


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

Re: [Frameworks] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[robert harris]

The “early cinema/early video” query is a good one, one that I’ve not seen 
explored with much rigor. 

Kleinhans’ question of “broadcast TV or portapak” is significant.

Early TV might have more in common with radio than with early film.

Early video (portapak) provoked, for some practitioners, sensibilities in 
keeping with those of the Lumieres. 

The Lumiere camera was more like video than any other camera (including the 
Edison version) as it was, like video, a capture and playback device (and lab).

The promptness with which the Lumieres could playback their recordings (if my 
film mythology serves me) is almost video-like (time was a little slower in 
those days, so they say).

 Both early film and early video were made without post-production edits, hence 
were finished in camera.

 Video’s instant feedback loop is an unequivocal distinction from film.

To give proper attention to all origin strains of video, you have to consider 
camera-less, raster based work (Nam June Paik, Wolf Vostell and others).

The “early cinema” equivalent might be the first people to mark on clear 
leader, some Italian Futurists, Hans Richter, Man Ray etc.

 As to cultural “outrage”, it wasn’t uncommon for the people throwing things at 
the artists and making big scenes to be the Surrealists themselves.

 

Some worthy writing of early video (essays you should be able to easily find): 

Hollis Frampton, The Withering Away of the State of the Art

David Antin, Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium




On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:46 AM, Chuck Kleinhans  wrote:

> An answer depends on how “early” you’re talking about film (1890s? later?), 
> and about video (Broadcast TV or Portapak?).  Probably the most significant 
> common feature is the fixed camera position.
> 
> The most significant difference (beyond the obvious one of resolution) is 
> shot duration.  Video (portpak on) allowed for remarkably long shots compared 
> to almost all film.
> 
> If you (or anyone) can find it, Noel Burch’s film “Correction Please, or How 
> We Got Into Pictures” is a great explanation of the evolution of early films' 
> means and style, concentrating on how the audience was shaped by the evolving 
> formal elements of cinema.
> 
> 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

Re: [Frameworks] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Cinema Project]

Jesse!

In regards to "well-deployed spoilers," I might look into Maurice
LeMaître's "Le film est déjà commencé?" from 1952. It was a Lettrist film
and supposed staged provocation. There's some accounts/ info on it in
Off-Screen Cinema by Kaira M Cabañas.

Might not be what you're looking for at all, but it's an interesting sort
of (delayed) response to those legendary "reactions."

Mia Ferm

-- 
*Cinema Project*
www.cinemaproject.org
971-266-0085
PO Box 5991
Portland, OR 97228


On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Fred Camper  wrote:

> Yes, that's right. Because it was positive film, a succession of black and
> white rectangles appeared inside each other as with each new pass the
> previous result was filmed. I believe it was around 40 minutes long. It was
> really interesting; I had never seen anything like it before, and have not
> since.
>
> Fred Camper
>
>
> On 1/13/2016 11:32 PM, Gene Youngblood wrote:
>
> I believe Tony Conrad did some kind of demonstration or performance of
> “film feedback” in which exposed 16mm film went immediately into a
> developing bath and was projected, and the projection was filmed and
> projected, and so on.  No doubt someone on this list remembers that and can
> describe it properly. Also, for scholars of early video, in the current
> issue of Afterimage Robyn Farrell has an in-depth history of Gerry Schum’s
> “TV Gallery” and “Video Gallery” projects in Germany in the late sixties,
> which I only alluded to in passing in Expanded Cinema.
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:17 PM, robert harris  wrote:
>
> The “early cinema/early video” query is a good one, one that I’ve not seen
> explored with much rigor.
>
> Kleinhans’ question of “broadcast TV or portapak” is significant.
>
> Early TV might have more in common with radio than with early film.
>
> Early video (portapak) provoked, for some practitioners, sensibilities in
> keeping with those of the Lumieres.
>
> The Lumiere camera was more like video than any other camera (including
> the Edison version) as it was, like video, a capture and playback device
> (and lab).
>
> The promptness with which the Lumieres could playback their recordings (if
> my film mythology serves me) is almost video-like (time was a little slower
> in those days, so they say).
>
>  Both early film and early video were made without post-production edits,
> hence were finished in camera.
>
>  Video’s instant feedback loop is an unequivocal distinction from film.
>
> To give proper attention to all origin strains of video, you have to
> consider camera-less, raster based work (Nam June Paik, Wolf Vostell and
> others).
>
> The “early cinema” equivalent might be the first people to mark on clear
> leader, some Italian Futurists, Hans Richter, Man Ray etc.
>
>  As to cultural “outrage”, it wasn’t uncommon for the people throwing
> things at the artists and making big scenes to be the Surrealists
> themselves.
>
>
>
> Some worthy writing of early video (essays you should be able to easily
> find):
>
> Hollis Frampton, *The Withering Away of the State of the Art*
>
> David Antin, *Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium*
>
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:46 AM, Chuck Kleinhans 
> wrote:
>
> An answer depends on how “early” you’re talking about film (1890s?
> later?), and about video (Broadcast TV or Portapak?).  Probably the most
> significant common feature is the fixed camera position.
>
> The most significant difference (beyond the obvious one of resolution) is
> shot duration.  Video (portpak on) allowed for remarkably long shots
> compared to almost all film.
>
> If you (or anyone) can find it, Noel Burch’s film “Correction Please, or
> How We Got Into Pictures” is a great explanation of the evolution of early
> films' means and style, concentrating on how the audience was shaped by the
> evolving formal elements of cinema.
>
> 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 
> listFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comhttps://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] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Pip Chodorov]

Hi Fred,
wasn't the first image of a candle burning?
I saw Tony project this, not as a performance but as a final print.
Pip


At 23:50 -0500 13/01/16, Fred Camper wrote:
Yes, that's right. Because it was positive film, a succession of 
black and white rectangles appeared inside each other as with each 
new pass the previous result was filmed. I believe it was around 40 
minutes long. It was really interesting; I had never seen anything 
like it before, and have not since.


Fred Camper

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Pip Chodorov]

I can provide Lemaitre's film if you are interested.
Isou's film ON VENOM AND ETERNITY is an earlier 
iteration, Lemaitre went farther into 
self-recursion (a film about itself).

Pip


At 22:47 -0800 13/01/16, Cinema Project wrote:
In regards to "well-deployed spoilers," I might 
look into Maurice LeMaître's "Le film est déjà 
commencé?" from 1952. It was a Lettrist film and 
supposed staged provocation. There's some 
accounts/ info on it in Off-Screen Cinema by 
Kaira M Cabañas.


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Gene Youngblood]

I believe Tony Conrad did some kind of demonstration or performance of “film 
feedback” in which exposed 16mm film went immediately into a developing bath 
and was projected, and the projection was filmed and projected, and so on.  No 
doubt someone on this list remembers that and can describe it properly. Also, 
for scholars of early video, in the current issue of Afterimage Robyn Farrell 
has an in-depth history of Gerry Schum’s “TV Gallery” and “Video Gallery” 
projects in Germany in the late sixties, which I only alluded to in passing in 
Expanded Cinema.


> On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:17 PM, robert harris  wrote:
> 
> The “early cinema/early video” query is a good one, one that I’ve not seen 
> explored with much rigor. 
> 
> Kleinhans’ question of “broadcast TV or portapak” is significant.
> 
> Early TV might have more in common with radio than with early film.
> 
> Early video (portapak) provoked, for some practitioners, sensibilities in 
> keeping with those of the Lumieres. 
> 
> The Lumiere camera was more like video than any other camera (including the 
> Edison version) as it was, like video, a capture and playback device (and 
> lab).
> 
> The promptness with which the Lumieres could playback their recordings (if my 
> film mythology serves me) is almost video-like (time was a little slower in 
> those days, so they say).
> 
>  Both early film and early video were made without post-production edits, 
> hence were finished in camera.
> 
>  Video’s instant feedback loop is an unequivocal distinction from film.
> 
> To give proper attention to all origin strains of video, you have to consider 
> camera-less, raster based work (Nam June Paik, Wolf Vostell and others).
> 
> The “early cinema” equivalent might be the first people to mark on clear 
> leader, some Italian Futurists, Hans Richter, Man Ray etc.
> 
>  As to cultural “outrage”, it wasn’t uncommon for the people throwing things 
> at the artists and making big scenes to be the Surrealists themselves.
> 
>  
> 
> Some worthy writing of early video (essays you should be able to easily 
> find): 
> 
> Hollis Frampton, The Withering Away of the State of the Art
> 
> David Antin, Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:46 AM, Chuck Kleinhans  > wrote:
> 
>> An answer depends on how “early” you’re talking about film (1890s? later?), 
>> and about video (Broadcast TV or Portapak?).  Probably the most significant 
>> common feature is the fixed camera position.
>> 
>> The most significant difference (beyond the obvious one of resolution) is 
>> shot duration.  Video (portpak on) allowed for remarkably long shots 
>> compared to almost all film.
>> 
>> If you (or anyone) can find it, Noel Burch’s film “Correction Please, or How 
>> We Got Into Pictures” is a great explanation of the evolution of early 
>> films' means and style, concentrating on how the audience was shaped by the 
>> evolving formal elements of cinema.
>> 
>> 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

Re: [Frameworks] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Marc Couroux]

Hey Jesse,

Not exactly related, but I'd highly recommend Barnouw's Magician and the
Cinema
,
which expounds on Arthur C. Clarke's later statement that any sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

affectionately,

Marc

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Jesse Malmed 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for texts and works that draw connections (and erase them too,
> sure) between early cinema and the beginnings of video. And, for that
> matter, with other nascent technologies and their shared tendencies. Camera
> tricks, formal inventiveness, actualities, etc.
>
> Also, while I've got you — I was thinking about the (perhaps apocryphal,
> cunningly Gunningly so) stories of genuine fears about the Lumière train's
> first projection and the stories of the outraged audience at an early
> showing of L'Age D'Or throwing ink at the screen in protest. Ink on the
> screen is a pretty amazing gesture (it is about to not go without saying
> that I am obviously staunchly in the camp of artists over reactionary
> right-wingers) even/especially with its scale of potency to poetry. Are
> there other related stories you'd like to share? Torn down screens? Shadow
> puppets between the projector and the screen? Well-deployed spoilers?
>
> *JM*
>
> --
> *// // // J E S S E  M A L M E D *
> 505.690.7899 // jesse.mal...@gmail.com // live to tape
> 
> jessemalmed.net  // deep leap
>  // nightingale 
> // trunk show  //
> projective verse  // bad at
> sports  // acre_tv
>  // western pole 
>
> *
> Trunk
> Show in Newcity
> ** /
> **JM on WDCB
> ** /**
> Live to Tape in the Reader
> 
> / **Trunk Show in the Chicago Reader
> 
> / JM in the Reader
> 
>  /
> Gapers Block
> 
> / South Side Weekly
>  / Chicago Tribune
> Best of 2015
> *
>
> ___
> 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] Texts / Works Bridging Early Cinema, Early Video, Early ___

[Jesse Malmed]

Hello,

I'm looking for texts and works that draw connections (and erase them too,
sure) between early cinema and the beginnings of video. And, for that
matter, with other nascent technologies and their shared tendencies. Camera
tricks, formal inventiveness, actualities, etc.

Also, while I've got you — I was thinking about the (perhaps apocryphal,
cunningly Gunningly so) stories of genuine fears about the Lumière train's
first projection and the stories of the outraged audience at an early
showing of L'Age D'Or throwing ink at the screen in protest. Ink on the
screen is a pretty amazing gesture (it is about to not go without saying
that I am obviously staunchly in the camp of artists over reactionary
right-wingers) even/especially with its scale of potency to poetry. Are
there other related stories you'd like to share? Torn down screens? Shadow
puppets between the projector and the screen? Well-deployed spoilers?

*JM*

-- 
*// // // J E S S E  M A L M E D *
505.690.7899 // jesse.mal...@gmail.com // live to tape

jessemalmed.net  // deep leap
 // nightingale
 // trunk
show  //
projective verse  // bad at sports
 // acre_tv  //
western pole 

*
Trunk
Show in Newcity
** / **JM
on WDCB ** /**
Live to Tape in the Reader

/ **Trunk Show in the Chicago Reader

/ JM in the Reader

/
Gapers Block

/ South Side Weekly
 / Chicago Tribune
Best of 2015
*
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks